Oral
Answers to
Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Early Learning and Childcare: Funding

Claire Hanna: If he will have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring similar levels of funding for Northern Ireland to that announced for early learning and childcare in the spring Budget of 2023.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Today is a day of reflection in Northern Ireland. It marks an opportunity for people to think about the tragic and needless loss experienced by so many families during the troubles. It also allows us all as a society to reflect on how far Northern Ireland has come from the most difficult days of the troubles, and the further work required to ensure that we never again return to violence and that Northern Ireland is a truly peaceful, prosperous and reconciled society, which is something this Government are determined to deliver.
If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to note that my permanent secretary since January 2020, Madeleine Alessandri, is leaving the Department next week for another role within Government. I would like to place on record my thanks to her for all the help and guidance she has given me and everyone else over the last 10 months.
In answer to the question, in his spring Budget the Chancellor stated that Northern Ireland would receive Barnett consequentials for 2023-24 and 2024-25 as a result of increased UK Government spending on childcare policy reform in England.

Claire Hanna: The Secretary of State may be aware that there is no childcare strategy in Northern Ireland and very little support, which is placing many families under extreme financial pressure because of growing costs, exacerbating inequality among children and forcing many, particularly women, to abandon their career for years. Research by the advocacy group Melted Parents demonstrates that families in Northern Ireland have been consistently failed on this issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that childcare must be recognised as a core part of the economic and societal fabric, as well as a tool to give kids a great start in life? Will he support the Department of Education and others to ensure that families in Northern Ireland can finally access the benefits promised in the Budget, promised in New Decade, New Approach and promised before that as well?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Government recognised in the Budget, as I have just mentioned, how important childcare is for all the reasons the hon. Lady gave, and we do work with the Department of Education as much as we can. According to its figures, in the 2022-23 academic year there were 22,715 pupils in funded pre-school education in Northern Ireland, which is 91% of three-year-olds in the population. However, she makes a very valid point about how this needs to go further, as it will do across the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Healthcare

Simon Baynes: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the performance of the health service in Northern Ireland.

Christine Jardine: Whether he is taking steps with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce waiting times for healthcare in Northern Ireland.

Steven Baker: We are acutely aware of the challenges facing the health service in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the UK. That is why tackling waiting lists is one of the Prime Minister’s top five priorities. The performance of the NHS in Northern Ireland is not good enough, substantially because much-needed reforms have been avoided for years. Taking action to cut waiting lists and transform healthcare in Northern Ireland is the job of the devolved Government. For that reason, and many others, we urgently need the parties back in the Executive.

Simon Baynes: Over 500,000 people in Northern Ireland are waiting either to see a clinician or to have treatment, which represents one in four of the population. Does my hon. Friend agree that health services desperately need a working Executive to help address the huge problems they are facing?

Steven Baker: Yes. Without an Executive, local leaders are not able to deliver reforms to transform public services, and that is now being felt in the most uncomfortable, undesirable and difficult of ways by people in Northern Ireland, especially by those on long waiting lists. Northern Ireland desperately needs a working Executive.

Christine Jardine: I share the expressed concerns about the lack of an Executive in Northern Ireland and about support for the NHS, which is struggling. However, as the Minister mentioned, we are seeing similar problems across the United Kingdom. If it is one of the Prime Minister’s priorities, could he not meet the leaders of the NHS in each of the devolved nations, and the leaders of those devolved nations, to discuss how they can learn from each other and perhaps tackle the problem on a wide scale across the board?

Steven Baker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just said to me that the British-Irish Council did not discuss health this time, but it has in the past. That would be a good forum for that discussion, but the hon. Member will realise that it is rather above my pay grade.

Power Sharing

Mary Glindon: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on restoring power sharing in Northern Ireland.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I regularly discuss Northern Ireland affairs with my extremely interested Cabinet colleagues and keep them fully abreast of the efforts being made to restore the power-sharing Northern Ireland Executive. My total focus is on the return of a devolved Government, and the Windsor framework is the basis on which to do that.

Mary Glindon: In the past, successful attempts to restore power sharing involved weeks of intensive talks between both Governments as well as the five main parties in Northern Ireland, but there is a vagueness about the current process. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he will try the previously tested methods over the coming summer?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I give an assurance to the hon. Lady that no stone will be left unturned in trying to get the Executive back up and running. The one thing that I did learn from the Windsor framework negotiations is that confidentiality in modern-day British politics and western politics is key in trying to get anything over the line.

Alun Cairns: The Windsor framework will make a significant difference to businesses and communities in Northern Ireland as they seek to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Windsor framework agreement has an international dimension, in that it has improved the status of the UK around the world, allowing the Prime Minister and the President of the United States to agree the Atlantic declaration and other such agreements?

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is true, and I am slightly surprised by the element of pleasure that worldwide institutions—other Governments, the European Union and the United States Government, as my right hon. Friend says—have taken in seeing the Windsor framework come to fruition and, indeed, by how we are now talking about all sorts of important other things that seem to have been unlocked by the Windsor framework agreement.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the shadow Secretary of State.

Peter Kyle: Today is a day of reflection across Northern Ireland, and I share the Secretary of State’s support for those who are participating. The Secretary of State has said that the Government need to demonstrate that Northern Ireland remains a “strong and integral” part of the United Kingdom to restore power sharing. The problem for him is that his Department still plans to impose immunity for terrorists on Northern Ireland, against the wishes of all local parties and all victim groups there. Does he not see the damage that that could do to the Union?

Chris Heaton-Harris: This question is about the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, which is currently on Report in the House of Lords. I disagree fundamentally with the principle behind what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Yes, none of the political parties in Northern Ireland is behind this particular Bill, but in great fairness to the Democratic Unionist party, it has never been behind any sort of amnesty. That has been a principled position on its part from the Belfast/Good Friday agreement onwards, which I completely understand. I do not think I will ever be able to win that argument with the DUP. However, we do need to address these issues. We have a question later on legacy and a family who need information to allow themselves to reconcile the death of a family member. The Bill that we will present, which will be article 2 compliant—I truly believe that—will get information for a whole host of families who have not had it for well over 25 years.

Peter Kyle: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s detailed answer. There are ways forward that the DUP and other parties have supported, but the Government have chosen a different path. His Department cannot be fully focused on restoring power sharing while it is spending so much precious time on this Bill. Yesterday, even the Irish Government officially requested a pause in the Bill’s passage through Parliament. The Secretary of State says that the Bill will be a different beast after the Lords, so will he consider giving people the time to assess the changes before it returns to this House?

Chris Heaton-Harris: This Bill has had a long gestation. It had two days of consideration on the Floor of this House in its original form this time last year. It had one of the longest Committee stages ever in the House of Lords, taking nearly five months to complete. We laid a whole host of amendments as a Government at that point. It has its first day on Report today and another day next Wednesday. This House will have plenty of time to consider those amendments and others when the Bill returns to this place.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to his outgoing permanent secretary, Madeleine Alessandri, and we wish her well in her new position.
The Secretary of State will be aware that since New Decade, New Approach at the beginning of 2020, we have pressed for legislation that will protect Northern Ireland’s ability to trade within the internal market of the United Kingdom and respect our economic rights under article VI of the Acts of Union. Are the Government any closer to bringing forward such legislation?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I very much look forward to being in a space where, following further conversations with the right hon. Gentleman, I can bring forward legislation in this place that does exactly what he needs it to do for his party to be able to give me a date when it will go back into the Executive in Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Secretary of State will know that we want to see Stormont back up and running and fully functioning again, but it is critical for us that Northern Ireland’s ability to trade with its biggest market—which is, of course, the rest of the United Kingdom—is protected. We do have concerns  about the practical outworking of proposals in the Windsor framework and what it means for the movement of goods in the non-EU lane. The Prime Minister has stated that there will be free movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we need to see that reflected in the practical arrangements, which, I have to say, are not matched by what the EU is saying about the non-EU lane and its operation.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The right hon. Gentleman has detailed knowledge of this area, and I do enjoy our regular conversations on these points. He knows that in the Command Paper on the Windsor framework, which was published back in February, we detailed the British Government’s view of how we could bring in unfettered NI to GB trade as we move forward. We need to put more flesh on that bone—of that I am sure—but, as he knows, I constantly seek his guidance to ensure that I get this bit of my job completely right.

Electronic Travel Authorisation Scheme: Tourism

Tim Loughton: What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the tourism sector in Northern Ireland on the implementation of the electronic travel authorisation scheme.

Steven Baker: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Department most recently met with Northern Ireland tourism organisations alongside the Home Office for discussions on how to communicate the ETA requirement on 7 June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also hosted a tourism roundtable with sector leaders at Hillsborough castle on 20 April. The Government will continue their engagement with the tourism sector, which we recognise plays a vital role in Northern Ireland’s economy.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful for that answer, but does my hon. Friend acknowledge that if an ETA exemption was granted for tourists—or, indeed, people claiming to be tourists—travelling from the Republic of Ireland, that would undermine the integrity of the whole scheme?

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend is right, and that is the Government’s policy. We have engaged closely with not only the tourism sector but our friends in the Irish Government on this issue. I hope that we will be able to work together to ensure that there is a consistent and coherent communication strategy to ensure that tourists know they must register for an ETA and must continue to comply with the UK’s immigration requirements. I should say that whether one stays at Hillsborough castle, the Travelodge or any of the other great hotels in Northern Ireland, it is a wonderful place to visit.

Stephen Farry: Does the Minister recognise that Ireland is marketed internationally as a single entity with respect to tourism? Does he understand that treating movements on the island of Ireland the same as any entries into the UK from the rest of the world is not fair and does not recognise the specific circumstances that exist on the island?

Steven Baker: I am most grateful to the hon. Member. We do recognise elements of what he said, and indeed we have had those conversations most recently with the Irish Government at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is the Government’s position that we should not create a loophole through the ETA scheme, but we do need to ensure that we communicate clearly with everyone the need to register and comply with immigration requirements. He may know that we have created an exemption for third-country nationals who are ordinarily resident in Ireland, and of course the requirement does not apply to citizens of the UK or Ireland under the common travel area, which we will continue to honour.

Education Funding: Community Groups

Mike Amesbury: What recent discussions he has had with community groups on the potential impact of changes in the level of funding for education in Northern Ireland.

Steven Baker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are acutely aware of the challenges facing the education sector in Northern Ireland. He has met member organisations of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action to discuss these issues, and I have been engaging with stakeholders about the wider cost of division in education, which a report by researchers working independently at Ulster University recently estimated was an extraordinary £226 million per year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be preferable for the Northern Ireland Executive to be restored so that they may make decisions on the issues that matter to the people of Northern Ireland, including the right level of funding for education.

Mike Amesbury: The Department of Education in Northern Ireland has announced that it will not proceed with proposed cuts to early years, extended schools and youth service programmes, which is broadly welcomed by community groups. Will the Minister confirm whether the Northern Ireland Office took direct action and advised on how guidance should be interpreted?

Steven Baker: We are always willing to work closely with the Northern Ireland civil service, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we have put in place an Act of Parliament to formalise arrangements by which decisions are taken by Northern Ireland civil servants during this governance gap. We will continue to work closely with civil servants, but if he would like to discuss a specific concern more closely with me, I will be glad to meet him. The answer to the problem is something that I think the whole House agrees on: it would be preferable to have locally accountable, devolved Government restored as soon as possible to take those decisions.

Robin Walker: Our Prime Minister has described education as the
“closest thing to a silver bullet there is”.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has heard concerns about the fact that Northern Ireland’s education budget is going down as the budgets in the rest of the UK are going up. Will the Minister make the case for   further investment in education in Northern Ireland and continue to pursue integration, which is crucial to the future success of education?

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. Integration is central not only to the Government’s policy but to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I am rather grateful that there has been some small controversy over the Ulster University report on the cost of division. We must have that conversation. If we are spending £600,000 a day on maintaining a system within which only 7% of children are educated in formal integrated schools and, overwhelmingly, children are educated separately as Catholics or Protestants, we should have a serious conversation about the cost of that system.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Chris Elmore: Universities recently wrote a joint letter to the Secretary of State warning that his budget will force them to cut student places and will have a “fundamental and dangerous impact” on the future of Northern Ireland. Will the Minister carry out an assessment of the effect that a loss of student placements would have on Northern Ireland’s economy, so that the House can be fully informed of the long-term impacts of the budget?

Steven Baker: We are in frequent conversation with the vice-chancellors. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we have taken a power to commission advice and to consult, and he will know that there is a need to look at revenue raising. All those things come together and point in a direction on which I hope, in the end, there will be consensus: to ensure that the excellent higher education sector in Northern Ireland continues to be a beacon of great education for the world.

Public Services: Budget

Peter Grant: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the budget for public services in Northern Ireland.

John McNally: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the budget for public services in Northern Ireland.

Chris Heaton-Harris: For many years, the UK Government have recognised the unique challenges that Northern Ireland faces. We have provided around £7 billion in additional funding to Northern Ireland since 2014, on top of the Barnett-based block grant. Northern Ireland Executive spending per person is around 20% higher than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Peter Grant: A recent study has showed that 90% of people in Northern Ireland are having to cut back on their spending. The cost of living crisis means that a third are cutting back a lot on basics such as food, fuel and housing. Against that background, the Secretary of State’s Government are imposing real-terms budget cuts across almost the whole public sector in Northern Ireland. At the time of a cost of living crisis, are his budget cuts making the crisis better or worse?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The budget for Northern Ireland was set out in the spending review a couple of years and is unchanged. All UK Government Departments are being asked to absorb inflation and energy costs within their budgets; Northern Ireland’s Executive is no different. I am fully aware of what is going on with the cost of energy, food and other things in Northern Ireland, as I meet people regularly who tell me about it.

John McNally: New research from Northern Ireland found that women were the shock absorbers of poverty, with 75% struggling to pay for food and 73% struggling to pay their electric bills, leading to mothers missing meals to feed their families. The saving efficiencies to the Northern Ireland budget include cuts to holiday hunger payments and, now, free school meals. Will the Minister explain why women and children are forced to starve to repair the chaos that the Tories caused to the economy?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in one aspect. The budget is fair and allows for the statutory things to be delivered. I meet with women’s groups very regularly—I met a whole group of them last week. I fully understand the implications of the budget. However, it should be for Northern Ireland Ministers to sort it out.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: Beyond the cost of living crisis, there is a crisis facing public services across Northern Ireland. To give one very pertinent example, the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Simon Byrne, reported to the policing board last month that the force faced a budget gap of some £141 million. That is a gap that can only be met by cutting police numbers further. Given that police numbers are already at 6,500, which is 1,000 below the recommended establishment figure quoted by Chris Patten and the lowest number since 1978, that is clearly a poor situation. Given the severe terror threat, what will the UK Government do to ensure that Northern Ireland has a police force capable of meeting continued security challenges, as well as meeting the needs of the communities the police force is there to serve?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The police budget in Northern Ireland is devolved. It comes through the Department of Justice, which has to live within its means just like every other Department, but I regularly meet and talk to the chief constable. The UK Government also provide an extra £32 million a year for such security measures.

Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery

Sarah Atherton: What recent progress his Department has made on establishing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I have identified the right hon. Sir Declan Morgan to be appointed chief commissioner designate of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and   Information Recovery. Hopefully, his appointment will come into effect when the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill receives Royal Assent.

Sarah Atherton: I welcome the progress made towards establishing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, but after 40 years of waiting—I have also been raising the case in the Chamber over the past three and a half years—Mr Vaughan-Jones and his family have never received a conclusive account of what happened to his brother Robert, 2 Para, at Warrenpoint in 1979. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the case and progress?

Chris Heaton-Harris: My hon. Friend raises a critical point and I would be delighted to meet her to talk about it. As I said earlier, many families across Northern Ireland and Great Britain still do not have the answers they require about the acts of serious harm committed in the troubles. The system has not worked as it is, which is why we need to pass the Bill and establish the ICRIR as soon as possible.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. When it comes to recognising the need for reconciliation and information recovery, it can never, ever be a substitute for victims’ access to justice. Will he confirm that innocent victims will always be a priority for the Northern Ireland Office and this Government?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I can do that, 100%. The hon. Gentleman is completely right.

Promotion of Northern Ireland Businesses Overseas

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to promote Northern Ireland businesses overseas.

Robbie Moore: What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to promote Northern Ireland businesses overseas.

Steven Baker: As a result of the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland will be in the unique position of being part of the UK internal market as of right, having privileged access to the EU market, being under UK services regulation, and having access to the free trade agreements to which we are acceding. In addition, I have led trade missions with Invest Northern Ireland to Canada and South Korea to promote brilliant Northern Ireland businesses overseas, and will take further similar steps.

Andrew Selous: What will be the benefit to businesses in Northern Ireland of working with the UK Export Academy?

Steven Baker: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the UK Export Academy, brought forward by the Department for Business and Trade. To illustrate its success, I would point to Lowden Guitars, which takes its products from its factory in County Down to customers in Australia. I encourage businesses across Northern Ireland, and indeed across the UK, to use the Export Academy, as he implicitly suggests.

Robbie Moore: How will the New Deal for Northern Ireland funding help to boost economic growth and increase Northern Ireland’s competitiveness overseas?

Steven Baker: The £400 million in the new deal for Northern Ireland funding will underscore the UK’s commitment to supporting and protecting the interests of people and businesses in Northern Ireland. New deal funding has been invested in projects such as £15 million for the Skill Up project to improve skills, £11 million for a cyber-AI hub at Queen’s University Belfast, and a number of other projects, including £8 million for Invest NI to help to promote trade. It is a commitment of which we are very proud and I could speak at even greater length.

Ian Paisley Jnr: What is the Northern Ireland Office doing, and what is the Minister doing, to promote Northern Ireland businesses at COP28, which will provide a significant opportunity for those businesses to be marketed on the world stage, especially those involved in hydrogen technology? We have a hydrogen hub in my area.

Steven Baker: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a personal interest in this subject, and I should be happy to meet him to discuss how we can do more. There are some excellent businesses in Northern Ireland, including Catagen, which has an incredible technology for converting wind power and water into hydrocarbon fuels, and other businesses which should have the opportunity to participate.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Patricia Gibson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 June.

Rishi Sunak: This morning I opened the Ukraine recovery conference alongside President Zelensky. The aim of the conference is to secure a resilient economic future for Ukraine.
As we mark the 75th anniversary of the arrival of HMT Empire Windrush tomorrow, I am sure the whole House will celebrate the contribution of the Windrush generation, who have done so much to build the Britain that we cherish today. In this Armed Forces Week, we also thank our armed forces for all that they do to keep our country safe.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Patricia Gibson: Given that inflation continues to outstrip pay awards, and given that we expect to see the 13th consecutive rise in interest rates tomorrow, will the Prime Minister tell us by how much living standards have fallen during his eight months in office?

Rishi Sunak: I have always been clear about the fact that inflation is putting pressure on family budgets. The UK Government have taken decisive action to support families through this difficult time, including  households in Scotland, who are receiving considerable support—not just help with energy bills, but help for the most vulnerable as well.

Mark Menzies: On this side of the House we have a proud record of supporting the nuclear industry, which plays an essential part in the achievement of secure, low-carbon energy. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has given his backing to the next generation of nuclear reactors, including small modular reactors and larger projects. Will he now commit himself to ensuring that the fuel for these projects is manufactured in the UK, which will secure long-term, high-skilled employment at key sites in the north-west such as Springfields Fuels in my constituency, and a supply chain across the UK?

Rishi Sunak: We are preserving and strengthening the UK’s nuclear fuel production capacity through our £75 million nuclear fuel fund, and I know that Springfields Fuels has benefited from £30 million of funding. My hon. Friend is right to say that our domestic nuclear fuel sector has a critical role to play in supporting the UK’s energy security and independence, and I know that he will continue to be a champion for the industry in the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I echo the Prime Minister’s comments about the Windrush generation, who have contributed so much to our country, and join him in paying tribute to the armed forces, in this week and all weeks.
Let me also say that Glenda Jackson’s passing leaves a space in our cultural and political life that can never be filled. She played many roles, with great distinction, passion and commitment: Academy award-winning actor, campaigning Labour MP, and an effective Government Minister. We will never see talent like hers again.
One of the Prime Minister’s own MPs says that Britain is facing a “mortgage catastrophe”. Does he agree with her?

Rishi Sunak: Let me start by joining the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his tribute to Glenda Jackson.
It is right that we support those with mortgages, which is why halving inflation is absolutely the right economic priority. Inflation is what is driving interest rates up, and inflation is what erodes savings, pushes up prices, and ultimately makes people poorer. That is why, a long time before I had this job, I highlighted the importance of tackling inflation, and it is why I said that it was never easy to root out inflation but we would take the difficult and responsible decisions to do so. It is an approach that the International Monetary Fund has strongly endorsed, in its words, describing our actions as “decisive and responsible”.

Keir Starmer: I realise that the Prime Minister has spent all week saying that he does not want to influence anyone or anything, but he was certainly keeping to that in his answer. He knows very well the cause of the “mortgage catastrophe”: 13 years of economic failure, and a Tory kamikaze Budget which crashed the economy  and put mortgages through the roof. Will the Prime Minister tell us how much the Tory mortgage penalty will cost the average homeowner?

Rishi Sunak: As ever, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware of the global macroeconomic situation. Let me tell him and the House what we are doing to support those with mortgages. We have deliberately and proactively increased the generosity of our support for the mortgage interest scheme. We have also established a new Financial Conduct Authority consumer duty, which will protect people with mortgages—for example, moving them on to interest-only mortgages or lengthening mortgage terms. And we have spent tens of billions of pounds supporting people with the cost of living, particularly the most vulnerable. That is the difference between us: while he is always focused on the politics, we are getting on and doing the job.

Keir Starmer: Let’s test that. The question that the Prime Minister refuses to answer—he knows the answer: £2,900 extra—is the cost to the average family of the Tory mortgage penalty. He was warned by experts about this as long ago as autumn last year, but he either did not get it, did not believe it or did not care, because he certainly did not do anything. When I raised this a couple of months ago, he had the gall to stand at that Dispatch Box and say he was delivering for homeowners. How is an extra £2,900 a year on repayment delivering for homeowners?

Rishi Sunak: Let’s just look at the facts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about interest rates. Perhaps he could explain why interest rates are at similar levels in the United States, in Canada, in Australia and in New Zealand and why they are at the highest level in Europe that they have been for two decades. That is why it is important that we have a plan to reduce inflation. In contrast, what do we hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He wants to borrow an extra £28 billion a year. That would make the situation worse. He wants to ban new supplies of energy from the North sea. That would make the situation worse. And he wants to give in to unions’ unaffordable pay demands. That would make the situation worse. He does not have many policies, but the few that he does have all have the same thing in common: they are dangerous, inflationary and working people would pay the price. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Seriously? [Interruption.] Sorry? I don’t think we need any more, do we? No.

Keir Starmer: I appreciate that the Prime Minister has a keen interest in the mortgage market in California, but I am talking about mortgage holders here. Whilst his Government are consumed in lawbreaking, chaos and division, working people are paying the price. This morning, I spoke to James in Selby. He is a police officer, working hard to keep people safe every day. The Tory mortgage penalty is going to cost him and his family £400 more each and every month. That is nearly £5,000. He told me this morning—Conservative Members may not want to hear this—that they have decided to sell their house and to downsize, and he has just told his children they are going to have to start sharing bedrooms. Why should James and his family pay the cost of the Prime Minister’s failure?

Rishi Sunak: I hope, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking to James, he explained that his economic policies would make James’s situation worse. It is not just me saying that. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says that his policy of never-ending debt and borrowing would damage James because it would “increase inflation” and drive up interest rates, leaving James and everybody else in this country poorer. The International Monetary Fund has said that our plan prioritises not what is politically easy, but what is right for the British people. That is what responsible economic leadership looks like.

Keir Starmer: James and his family will have been listening to that, Prime Minister, and their plight should keep Conservative Members awake at night because, over the next few years, 7.5 million people are going to be in the same boat, all paying the Tory mortgage penalty month after month after month. The situation is so dire that repossessions are already up 50%—a total betrayal of the idea that if you work hard, you will get on. What is the Prime Minister going to do to make sure that more families do not lose their homes?

Rishi Sunak: I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman is reading from his prepared script, but he failed to listen to the answer I gave. I spelled out in detail what we are doing. We have increased the generosity of support for the mortgage interest scheme, and we did that proactively in advance. We have also established a new Financial Conduct Authority consumer duty that will protect borrowers by, for example, allowing them to extend their mortgage term or switch to interest-only mortgages, and we have spent tens of billions of pounds supporting households with living costs. Those are the practical steps that we are taking to help James and other families who are facing these situations.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned mortgage arrears and repossessions, and I am pleased to say that today they are running at a level below when we entered the pandemic because of the actions we are taking. More importantly perhaps, they are also running three times lower than the level we inherited from the last Labour Government.

Keir Starmer: I am sure that, from the vantage point of his helicopter, everything might look fine, but that is not the lived experience of those on the ground. After 13 years of economic failure, people across the country are paying the price of uncosted, reckless, damaging decisions by the Tory party. Even now, as mortgages go through the roof, the Prime Minister is planning to wave through honours and peerages for those who caused misery for millions. What does it say about this Government that, while working people are worrying about mortgage rates, paying the bills and even repossessions, the Tory party is rewarding those who are guilty of economic vandalism?

Rishi Sunak: No amount of personal attacks and petty point-scoring can disguise the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not have a plan for this country. He comes here every week to make the same petty points. We are getting on and delivering for this country. Yes, inflation is a challenge, which is why we are on track to keep reducing it. We are reducing   waiting lists and stopping the boats, all while he is focused on the past and focused on the politics. It is all talk. Whereas this Government and this Prime Minister deliver for the country. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Philip, I know you are popular.

Philip Davies: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
My constituents continue to be concerned about energy prices and energy security. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will not cave in to the extremist bullies from Just Stop Oil and their patsies in the Labour leadership and will instead commit to developing new oil and gas production in the United Kingdom, which would be good for jobs, good for the economy and make us less dependent on foreign countries for our energy supply?

Rishi Sunak: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Putin’s weaponisation of energy has amplified the need for greater energy security, which is why we deliberately launched a new licensing round for the North sea. Official forecasts suggest that a block on North sea oil and gas investment would mean that the UK’s dependence on imports rises substantially. The Labour party’s decision is one that puts ideology ahead of jobs, investment and Britain’s energy security.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP leader.

Stephen Flynn: In February, the Prime Minister told this House that
“borrowing costs are…back to where they should be”.—[Official Report, 8 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 904.]
In March, he boasted
“we are on track to halve inflation by the end of this year.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 330.]
In May, he said that “economic optimism is increasing.” Given the dire economic reality of today, is it not now clear that he has taken his honesty lessons from Boris Johnson?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman also fails to mention that it is not just the Bank of England, not just the Office for Budget Responsibility and not just the OECD but the IMF that have all upgraded their growth outlook for the United Kingdom economy this year. While he and others were predicting that this country would enter a recession, the actions of this Government have meant that we have, so far, averted that. We continue to be on track to keep reducing inflation, because that is the right economic priority.

Lindsay Hoyle: I want Members to be a little more cautious in what they say. These are questions to the present, serving Prime Minister. There is a danger that the way the question was put could mislead.

Stephen Flynn: From listening to the Prime Minister’s answer, I do not think he quite grasps the reality of the economic situation facing households across these isles—how could he? But it does not need to be like this and it did not need to be like this. Because mortgage deals in Ireland are not sitting in excess of 6%—they are at   about 4.5%. Inflation in the euro area is not sitting at 8.7%—it is sitting at closer to 6%. Britain is broke. Seven years after the Conservatives’ EU referendum, will he finally admit that it was Brexit that broke it?

Rishi Sunak: Again, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was paying attention earlier; interest rates in this country are at similar levels to those in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The rise in inflation and interest rates is a global phenomenon. But that is why, early, I set out that bringing inflation down was the right economic priority to have. That is what this Government will do, but that requires difficult and responsible decisions. That is what leadership looks like—I do not think the SNP will ever do the same thing.

Virginia Crosbie: Wylfa, in my constituency, is recognised as the best site for small modular reactors and large-scale new nuclear in the UK. Given the UK Government’s commitment to nuclear and Wylfa, when can my constituents expect to hear the result of Great British Nuclear’s small modular reactor competition? Diolch yn fawr.

Rishi Sunak: There will be no greater champion for this technology and her community than my hon. Friend. My understanding is that the first stage of market engagement is already under way. The expectation is that the down-selection process will be launched this summer, with an ambition to assess and decide on the leading technologies this autumn. The competition will be open, judicious, fair and robust, and I express all my confidence that we will select the best technology for the United Kingdom.

Lindsay Hoyle: Lancashire is welcoming it.

Stephen Farry: Four months after the welcome Windsor framework, there is still no restored Northern Ireland Executive or Assembly, and we are facing an unprecedented budget crisis. This situation is untenable, and it is getting worse every day. The Government’s approach seems to be to wait to see whether something happens, rather than to lead from the front. So will the Prime Minister confirm that he is willing to work with the Northern Ireland parties on  a financial package for a restored Executive? Will he work more closely with the Irish Government to try to drive a process, including putting reform of the institutions on the agenda, so that those who want to govern Northern Ireland can do so?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his engagement with me and the Government during this process. I share his frustration, and our focus remains on delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, who expect and deserve their locally elected decision makers to address the issues that matter to them most. I thank him for his kind words about the Windsor framework and how it allows us to move forward. For many years, we have recognised the particular challenges facing Northern Ireland, which is why we have provided more than £7 billion of funding, on top of the Barnett block grant, since 2014. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary remains in close   contact with all the parties in Northern Ireland to clarify what more is needed, so that we can restore the conditions for Executive formation.

Liam Fox: Since 2016, cumulative growth has been 4% in Italy and 5.5% in Germany, whereas in the UK it has been 6.8%. In July last year, British exports to the European Union were the highest not just since Brexit, but since records began. The UK had the highest growth of any G7 country in both 2021 and 2022. The eurozone is currently in recession, but we are not. Is it not time that we heard more good news and talked Britain up?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the improvement in our economic outlook and the good, positive news showing the strength in the underlying economy. I know that he joins me in saying that our economic priority right now must be to continue to bear down on inflation, but while we do that, we are putting in place the conditions to grow the economy. As he said, unlike the Labour party, we will not talk Britain down; we will grow the country’s jobs.

Gavin Newlands: Last night was another fantastic night at Hampden—it was a real tonic during tough times for the tartan army and Scotland more widely. However, whereas English and Welsh fans could watch their national teams for free on Channel 4 and S4C, only a small fraction of Scots could watch their match, with many unable to afford the subscription to Viaplay, particularly during this cost of living crisis. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is inherently unfair, and will he ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Secretary to meet me to discuss how to fix this situation?

Rishi Sunak: I join the hon. Gentleman in his comments about the match. I know the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), is engaging with him and others on this particular topic, and I will make sure that she gets back to him.

Anne Marie Morris: In December last year, LINK conducted research about the acceptance of cash. It found that nearly half—45%—of people have been somewhere where cash has not been accepted or has been discouraged, and 49% of people said being unable or being discouraged to pay in cash was inconvenient. Will the Prime Minister look again at the Financial Services and Markets Bill, when it comes back from the other place, and ensure that any entity providing a public service directly to the public, involving payments or a charge, must accept cash?

Rishi Sunak: We know that cash continues to be used by millions of people, particularly those in vulnerable groups. That is why the Financial Services and Markets Bill will, for the first ever time, protect people’s access to cash in UK law. The Bill also supports businesses that continue to accept cash by ensuring reasonable access to deposit facilities, but as technology and consumer behaviour changes, it is right that organisations themselves should be able to choose the forms of payment that they will accept.

Meg Hillier: Does the Prime Minister believe that the reward for being a law breaker should be to be made a lawmaker?

Rishi Sunak: As we discussed last week, Mr Speaker, there is a well-established process of vetting for all peerages and I, in keeping with the convention followed by Prime Ministers of both parties, have followed the same process.

Danny Kruger: Wiltshire leads the world in agritech—the farming processes that increase productivity and will feed the world’s growing population, without wrecking the environment. I welcome what the Government have done in this space, particularly in gene editing, which is only possible because of Brexit. Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the work of Wiltshire farmers and tech entrepreneurs, particularly James Dyson, although there are many more? Does he agree with me that this is one of the key opportunities for our country to become a high-wage, high-skill, high-tech economy?

Rishi Sunak: When it comes to agritech, we are among the best in the world, with fantastic research bodies, businesses and pioneering farmers and growers. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all of them. They are getting our support through the £270 million farming innovation programme and, as he rightly mentioned, we are seizing the opportunities from our exit from the EU, including through our plans to develop gene-edited crops that are resistant to drought and flooding more quickly. That will drive up growth and productivity, and create jobs.

Kevin Brennan: Just to recap, during this Parliament we have had one Tory Prime Minister who turned out to be a proven liar, and a second Tory Prime Minister who was outlasted by a lettuce. After this week’s pathetic no-show by the Prime Minister, what one word would he use to describe himself? Might it be “weak”?

Rishi Sunak: What is weak is those in the party opposite being unable to stand up to the people who fund them and stand behind hard-working families in this country.

Kate Kniveton: I welcome the steps the Prime Minister is taking to stop illegal, dangerous and unnecessary small boast crossings, which are overwhelming our asylum system, but I have to raise significant concerns about a recent decision to stand up a third hotel in Burton, as well as increase capacity at another hotel by 64%. That will have a serious knock-on effect on our response to homelessness and rough sleeping, as well as causing challenges for wider public services in east Staffordshire. What further support can the Prime Minister provide local authorities in east Staffordshire to deal with these urgent concerns?

Rishi Sunak: That is why we need to stop the boats so that we can relieve the unsustainable pressure on our asylum system and accommodation, which is costing British taxpayers over £3 billion a year. Our new Bill will ensure that anyone arriving illegally will be detained and swiftly removed, but in the meantime we will take action to address the unacceptable cost of housing migrants in hotels. We recognise the pressure  this places on local areas. That is why the Government are providing further dispersal financial support, but I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Immigration Minister to discuss her specific local concerns.

Andrew Slaughter: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust described the Government’s recent decision to delay the rebuilding of Charing Cross, Hammersmith and St Mary’s Hospitals as
“hugely damaging for the health and healthcare of hundreds of thousands of people.”
Will the Prime Minister keep the promise made to me by his predecessor one year ago from that Dispatch Box and guarantee completion of new hospitals on those sites by 2030?

Rishi Sunak: The Government remain committed to two new hospital schemes for Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust at Hammersmith Hospital and Charing Cross Hospital, and for St Mary’s Hospital as part of the new hospital programme. We have expanded the programme, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to include buildings with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and we need to address those as a priority for the safety of staff and patients. However, we still expect the majority of schemes in cohort 4 to be in construction before 2030. I know that the Department will continue to keep him updated on progress.

David Davis: The United Kingdom sanctioned Iran for promoting terrorism, destabilising the middle east, supplying weapons to our enemies and, of course, the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Within the past few weeks, the journalist, David Rose, has reported in the that British universities have been undertaking research in collaboration with Iranian researchers and universities into areas of potential military applications, including drone technology, fighter jets, battlefield armour and laser communication. Will the Prime Minister initiate an investigation into this and take action to stop the failure of our sanctions regime before it does any more harm to the national interest of the United Kingdom and our allies?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important topic. We take all allegations of breaches of export control seriously. My understanding is that officials in the Department for Business and Trade are currently investigating the allegations made in the recent press article cited. We will not accept collaborations that compromise our national security. That is why we have made our systems more robust, including expanding the scope of the Academic Technology Approval Scheme to protect UK research from ever-changing global threats, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that and he has my assurance that we will keep on it.

Steve McCabe: Could any of the material that the Prime Minister’s Government are trying to avoid giving to the covid inquiry cover his tenure as Chancellor and his eat out to help out policy?

Rishi Sunak: As I have said previously, it is right that we learn the lessons from covid so that we can be better prepared for the future. That is why the Government have co-operated with the inquiry in a spirit of transparency and candour, handing over more than 55,000 documents so far. There is a very specific point of disagreement, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and it is the subject now of legal proceedings, so I am not able to comment further.

Greg Smith: Despite being world leaders in motorsport, the UK has not hosted a round of the World Rally Championship since 2019. We now have an opportunity to host a round in Northern Ireland next year to bring in in excess of £100 million to the economy, but to make that happen the promoters need Government underwriting of approximately £1 million. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this event simply must go ahead and will he instruct the relevant Departments to work with the motorsport all-party parliamentary group, Motorsport UK and the promoters to make it happen?

Rishi Sunak: Northern Ireland is a fantastic place to host international events. I am delighted that my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for driving forward prosperity in Northern Ireland. However, with tourism being devolved in Northern Ireland, I suggest that he engages with Tourism NI on this potential event, and I look forward to hearing how he gets on.

Deidre Brock: The UK Government and His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition refuse to face up to the bleak reality that Brexit is causing weaker growth and soaring inflation, according to the former Governor of the Bank of England. The LSE says that EU trade barriers have added, on average, £250 to household food bills, and Scots fishing chiefs are saying that they were sold down the river and scoff at the talk of treaty renegotiation as just spin. With such colossal failures stacking up and the former PM, who played a leading role in the leave campaign, finally exposed as a serial liar, will the current PM apologise to my constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith?

Rishi Sunak: I just point out to the hon. Lady, as she is going on about the EU and us leaving it, that we have actually grown faster than France and Italy since we left the single market, our exports have grown by 25% just since covid and, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) earlier, every single international organisation has upgraded its forecast for UK economic growth. That is because we have the right priorities to drive growth, create jobs and spread opportunity in every part of our United Kingdom.

Paul Holmes: Hospices across the UK provide not only quality, but compassionate care to people at the end of their lives, including Mountbatten   hospice in my constituency, which looked after my office manager Sue Hall when she passed away in March. That is why I and her son-in-law, Miles Rogers, will be skydiving to raise money on Saturday. We have raised £6,000 so far. The Prime Minister should feel free to donate to the campaign, but will he send his best wishes to all hospice workers across the United Kingdom?

Rishi Sunak: I join my hon. Friend in wishing Miles good luck this weekend as he raises money, and in paying tribute to all our incredible hospice volunteers and workers across the country. They do a fantastic job in all our constituencies at a very difficult time in families’ lives, and we all owe them an enormous amount of thanks.

Tim Farron: Half of us, sadly, will get cancer at some point during our lives and half of those with cancer will need radiotherapy treatment, yet 3.5 million people in this country live in radiotherapy deserts where they do not have close access to that treatment. That includes my constituency, where my constituents living in Westmorland have to take three-hour round trips every day to get lifesaving treatment. Will the Prime Minister back our proposal for a satellite radiotherapy unit at Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal, and support all the other Members living in radiotherapy deserts to bring radiotherapy close to their communities, too?

Rishi Sunak: Like the hon. Gentleman, I know that access to healthcare in rural areas is particularly important, given the distances that our rural constituents have to drive. That is why we remain committed to expanding the range of diagnostic services that are available through our proposal to roll out community diagnostic centres. The record-breaking capital budget that we have in the NHS is delivering that. I look forward to the Department’s engaging with him on his plans for his local area.

Lia Nici: The Bank of England is raising interest rates to try to stem spending and therefore preventing inflation from being baked into the economy. The same cannot be said for those with savings accounts. Would it not be good for people to be encouraged and incentivised to save more? Will my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor talk to the industry and encourage them or impel them to give a good deal to savers too?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. It is vital that savers are treated fairly and that markets function as competitively as we would expect them to. I am pleased to tell her that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is meeting the industry and the banks this Friday to discuss the matter she has raised, and will make sure that she and everyone else gets an update after that.

Point of Order

Karl Turner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on 24 May, at Prime Minister’s questions, I asked the Prime Minister why he was forcing the British public to pay the legal bill for Boris Johnson for the Privileges Committee, which is a parliamentary Committee of this House. In his reply, the Prime Minister said there was a convention that former Ministers or Ministers would have the legal bill covered in scenarios requiring lawyers such as public inquiries—Iraq, the contaminated blood scandal and other such inquiries. What the Prime Minister did was to suggest that the precedent was already set. It is not. It transpires, following several questions to the Cabinet Office, that it cannot give me a single example of a Minister or former Minister having their legal bills covered for a parliamentary inquiry. He has effectively extended the precedent.
How do we get the Prime Minister to come back to the Dispatch Box, apologise and correct the record? One would have thought, given the events of recent days, that he would be keen to get back here to set the record straight.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I say first that I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order? He will have heard me say before that, if Ministers and others have different interpretations of events, it is not for the Chair to determine which is correct. That said—and I stress this—if a mistake has been made by a Minister, they should, of course, correct the record. What I do know very well is that, although the hon. Member has raised it here, this is certainly not the end of it. He will continue to pursue different avenues. I am sure that he will use the good offices and advice of the Table Office until he gets an answer—it may not be what he wants, but I am sure that he will get an answer. He has put his concern on the record for us all to know.

Karl Turner: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill Presented

Higher Education (Duty of Care) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron, supported by Munira Wilson, Wera Hobhouse and Debbie Abrahams, presented a Bill to provide that higher education institutions have a duty of care for their students; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 331).

Banking and Postal Services  (Rural Areas)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Drew Hendry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set minimum service standards for the provision of banking and postal services in rural areas, including for the provision of services through physical outlets; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss an issue that impacts on a significant portion of our population but too often falls by the wayside. I will shine a light on the unique challenges faced by our rural communities because of the withdrawal of vital services such as bank branches and post offices.
In a world hurtling towards digitalisation, we sometimes forget that not every part of our society can adapt to that transition equally. For some in rural communities, the cloud is more likely to provide rain than a platform for accessing essential services. For many in rural areas, banks and post offices offer more than just financial transactions or mail delivery points: they are lifelines and community hubs that connect individuals to the wider social and economic network. The withdrawal of those services is more than an inconvenience; it is a disruption that risks leaving our rural communities high and dry.
Rural communities form the bedrock of Scotland, and I am sure others will agree that it is the same for their countries, too. Such communities safeguard our natural resources, produce our food and contribute significantly to our cultural heritage, yet they face increasing marginalisation and neglect. The closure of bank branches and post offices owing to economic shifts and technological advancements has left our rural residents feeling overlooked and isolated. When they were needed to save the banks, they were told in countless adverts that the banks would support their communities, but village by village, town by town, those promises have vanished as corporate priorities have shifted. Similarly, the failure to pay postmasters properly, and the steady withdrawal of government services, has left many local post offices simply unsustainable and struggling. Let us not forget the damage that the Horizon scandal did to the post office network.
For our communities, this issue transcends financial and communication inconveniences. For our older citizens, those services might be their only way of managing finances or staying connected with loved ones. Local businesses rely on those outlets for transactions and receiving supplies. The digital alternatives, which are often considered commonplace in urban areas, are inaccessible because of inadequate internet connectivity or a lack of digital literacy. After all, if an Amazon customer in London cannot find a working Evri return point after trying four different locations, what chance do those living in rural areas have?
How do we address this problem? What can we do to ensure our march towards progress does not sideline these vital communities? The Bill proposes the implementation of legislation to safeguard these physical services in our rural areas. The legislation would mandate  a minimum number of physical branches per population, ensuring rural communities have access to these crucial services. We must certainly invest in improving digital infrastructure and digital literacy programmes, but the physical presence of these services is indispensable. They provide a sense of community and reassurance that digital platforms simply cannot replicate.
Incentives for banks and institutions to maintain these services in rural areas could be introduced, such as tax breaks or shared service models where multiple providers share a facility to lower operational costs. Yet while banking hubs may offer a solution to some, progress on these is glacial at best. With no legislation to back a community right to back this up, there is no meaningful incentive to provide these everywhere that they are needed.
Of course, we should also consider innovative delivery models such as mobile bank branches or post office vans to ensure accessibility for all, particularly those who might find travel difficult, but these models should supplement, not replace, physical services, and they must be designed to foster rural resilience. Services for rural areas must be designed to succeed, not to fail. That is why rural communities require a legal obligation for these services. The ongoing withdrawal of essential services from our rural communities is not just an issue: it is a crisis.
We must ensure that our digital transition is inclusive, compassionate and considerate of all of our citizens regardless of their location. Progress should never come at the expense of leaving anyone behind. Our rural communities deserve the right to access the same services and facilities as urban communities, and legislation to protect these services gives voice to the needs and rights of our rural communities.
The role of rural communities in our nation is indispensable, preserving our environment, ensuring food security and maintaining cultural heritage, yet these communities are often sidelined, left grappling with dwindling essential services. Bank branches and post offices are not mere conveniences: they are essential lifelines connecting them to the broader social and economic network of our country.
The UK Government’s inaction in addressing these issues has left our rural communities floundering. The onus lies here in Westminster where the power has been retained. The UK Government are the only ones currently capable of taking action, yet concrete measures to halt the decline of these essential services have been sorely  lacking. Without intervention, the digital divide will continue to widen and our rural communities will face increasing marginalisation. It is crucial that the UK Government take proactive steps to tackle this issue, or devolve the power to Scotland for us to do so ourselves.
In Scotland, especially after Brexit, our rural communities are experiencing population decline. Young people are leaving to seek new opportunities elsewhere without the new blood we previously had coming in, leaving behind an ageing population. This demographic shift poses its own challenges, from a dwindling workforce to added strains on services for the elderly. The very fabric of these communities—the traditions and practices preserved over generations—are consequently at threat.
Immigration can play a significant role here: by welcoming new Scots from overseas into these areas, we introduce new residents eager to contribute to the local economy and community, but we must also strive to create inclusive, welcoming communities that can support that necessary growth and sustainability of these towns and villages. With independence, we can do that ourselves, but action is needed now.
The survival and prosperity of our rural communities, particularly in Scotland, requires a multipronged approach. The protection of essential services, investment in infrastructure, and the creation of opportunities are all threads in this intricate tapestry. The fate of our rural communities is intrinsically linked with that of our nations. By ensuring their survival and growth, we create a resilient and diverse Scotland rich in tradition and culture and natural resources.
This could be true for the other nations of the UK as well. Let us not forget that progress is not solely about thriving cities and technological innovations; it is also about our villages, towns and farmland, and the people who call those places home. The strength of our nations lies in the unity and welfare of all our communities, both rural and urban. Let us ensure that we uphold that strength by safeguarding the services that our rural communities depend on.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Drew Hendry, Brendan O’Hara, Ben Lake, Marion Fellows, Allan Dorans, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Richard Thomson, Patricia Gibson, David Linden, Dr Philippa Whitford, Owen Thomson and Alan Brown present the Bill.
Drew Hendry accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 332).

Strikes  (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Lindsay Hoyle: I should inform the House that none of the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

Schedule - Minimum service levels for certain strikes

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2B.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 4B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 5B, 5C and 5D, and Government motion to disagree.

Kevin Hollinrake: There are three motions before the House. I am grateful for the fact that both Houses have reached agreement on the appropriate territorial application of the Bill, but I regret that we have not yet reached agreement on some remaining issues. I must once again urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendments before us. Again, the Bill has been amended in ways that would delay implementation or seriously limit the operation of minimum service levels. That would mean that we could not provide the all-important balance between the ability of unions and their members to strike and the ability of the wider public to access, during periods of strike action, the key services that our country needs. I will briefly summarise for the House the reasons why the amendments remain unacceptable to the House.
First, through Lords amendment 2B, the noble Lords seek to introduce additional consultation requirements and new parliamentary scrutiny processes. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the public, employers, employees, trade unions and their members are all able to participate in setting minimum service levels. That is why we ran consultations on applying MSLs to ambulance, fire, and passenger rail services on that basis. The Government maintain that the Bill enables the appropriate consultation to take place, and we are confident that the affirmative procedure will allow Parliament to conduct proper scrutiny of secondary legislation.

Alan Brown: Proposed new section 234F of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, inserted by the schedule, says,
“the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Does that not mean that there is no obligation to consult at all? The Secretary of State can decide that no one needs to be consulted. Does that not show the importance of the Lords amendment?

Kevin Hollinrake: If there is anybody whom the hon. Gentleman thinks was not able to contribute to the consultation, I ask him to please let me know, but it was  open to anybody to make a submission to the consultation, and all those submissions will be properly assessed by Ministers and officials.
I turn now to the Lords amendments that would restrict the ways in which we can ensure that minimum service levels are achieved, Lords amendment 4B still leaves employers powerless to manage instances of non-compliance when workers strike contrary to being named on a work notice.

Rachael Maskell: Could the Minister set out the timescale for the consultation and how he intends to carry it out?

Kevin Hollinrake: As the hon. Lady may know, our initial consultations closed around the middle of May—9 May to 11 May. Those submissions will now be considered, and we will report back to the House accordingly.

Christine Jardine: To be absolutely clear, Lords amendment 2B addresses the concerns that many of us in this place have about the right to strike and how it will be protected. How are the Government going to ensure that these minimum service levels are fair and balanced and do not affect that right to strike?

Kevin Hollinrake: We are very clear that we want to maintain the right to strike. Previous derogations, which we very much appreciate, have not interfered with people making their views known through industrial action. We do not expect that situation to change. As I say, the consultation ran for a good period of time, and the submissions are now being considered. Of course, we want to make sure that people have been properly consulted and that the regulations are fit for purpose.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Kevin Hollinrake: I will make a little progress, but I will make sure that both the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) get a chance to make their points.
The Bill takes the same approach as to any other strike action that is not protected under existing legislation. Lords amendment 5B may suggest that the other place accepts that trade unions should have a role to play in ensuring that minimum service levels are met, but in reality under, that amendment, whether and how the unions encouraged their members to comply with work notices would be at their discretion. Unions would be able to induce people to strike as normal and take steps to undermine the achievement of minimum service levels. That is clearly directly counter to the objectives of the policy.

Alan Brown: The Minister has said that the consultation has already closed, but the whole point of the Lords amendment is to oblige the Government to consult on draft regulations when they bring them forward and to publish impact assessments. If the consultation has already closed, that proves that there will be no transparency going forward, does it not?

Kevin Hollinrake: Not at all. There will be further scrutiny of the minimum service levels when they are brought forward, in the usual way that legislation passes through this House. Those regulations will be considered by both Houses.

Chris Stephens: In response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), the Minister indicated that the Government agree with the right to strike and want to protect it. However, rejecting Lords amendment 4B does not do that, because the consequence would be that employers would have the right to dismiss a worker taking part in industrial action, with no recourse to a tribunal. How does that protect the right to strike action?

Kevin Hollinrake: Because it requires people who are named in a work notice to turn up for work, which is common in other jurisdictions that use minimum service levels in order to ensure that the public can go about their daily lives and businesses continue to operate. It does not interfere with that ability.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

Kevin Hollinrake: I will give way for the final time.

Jim Shannon: The Minister is an honourable person, and I know that he understands the issues and where we are coming from. Decent, ordinary people vote to strike only when they feel voiceless and invisible to management. Government and big business can prevent strikes by listening and acting before that stage is reached, but the right to strike must always be a last-ditch possibility, and those people must reserve that right. Does the Minister understand that and agree with it?

Kevin Hollinrake: As always, I entirely agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. Of course strikes should be a last resort, and workers should be able to take industrial action when they feel their voices are not being heard. I do not think there is anything in the Bill that cuts across that. Hon. Members may disagree, but that is our position, and it is a position we have maintained throughout the passage of the Bill.

Alan Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Kevin Hollinrake: No, I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.
The Government maintain that there must be a responsibility for unions to ensure that their members comply. Without that, and without any incentives for employees to attend work on a strike day when identified in a work notice, the effectiveness of the legislation will be severely undermined. Unfortunately, I do not consider that these amendments are a meaningful attempt to reach agreement. I fear that we are having a somewhat repetitive debate that is delaying us getting on with the important business of minimising disruption to the public during periods of strike action, and I encourage this elected House to disagree with the amendments.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Justin Madders: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Today, we consider a number of Lords amendments that will go some way towards making the Bill slightly less draconian than it currently is, but will not make it a Bill that we can ultimately support. I start by paying tribute to Members in the other place who have done their best to ameliorate the Bill with the sensible amendments that we are considering, and which we will be supporting. What those Members understand is that the Bill is the act of a weak Government who have lost the authority and the will to govern for everyone; a Government who prefer legislation to negotiation, diversion to resolution, and confrontation to consultation. How Ministers have the gall to come to the Dispatch Box and talk about the importance of minimum service levels when we have seen the decimation of our public services under this Government—with a record 7.4 million patients left on waiting lists, record teacher vacancies, and ever-increasing response times to calls to the police—is beyond me.

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend is making excellent points. I have heard from doctors in Wirral West who firmly believe that the Bill represents an intrusion on legitimate trade union activities, undermines workers’ rights to representation, and would leave unions unable to effectively represent their members. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Justin Madders: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I do agree with those doctors. I will go on to explain why the Bill is an attack on basic freedoms and liberties that I thought this country held dear.
Turning first to Lords amendment 2B, as we know, the Bill presents the Secretary of State with huge, unchecked powers, throwing scrutiny and democracy out of the window. We think it is entirely reasonable that if a Secretary of State wants the power to set, impose and police minimum service levels, they should be accountable for the impact of those powers and able to demonstrate what their impact will be. Requiring them to conduct a proper impact assessment on the use of those powers and hold a consultation on any specific proposals they have could be helpful to a Secretary of State, because they cannot possibly know how every nook and cranny of any particular sector operates and what is needed to deliver a minimum service level—assuming they can define what one is.
If the Government think that it is such a wonderful idea to introduce minimum service levels in the sectors covered by the Bill, they should not fear scrutiny of their proposals, consultation with those directly affected, or challenges to their assumptions. My fear is that the Government fear all of those things. When the Regulatory Policy Committee described the Bill as “not fit for purpose”, one would have hoped that any sensible and rational Government would put a little bit of effort into talking to people to make sure that their own Bill had even a remote chance of working, but I suspect that—like so many things that we hear from this Government—they do not look beyond the easy headline and do not think through the consequences of their actions.
I will turn briefly to Lords amendment 5B, which attempts to deal with what is essentially a full-blown attack on the independence of trade unions and their  members. I know that the Government have been raising the bar ever higher on the number of members required to vote in favour of industrial action. However, even they must see that putting a requirement on a trade union to take action to stop some of its members from participating in industrial action once they have voted in favour of it—as proposed new section 234E of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 would do—undermines the very essence of what a trade union stands for.
We have never had an adequate explanation of what reasonable steps a union is expected to take in those circumstances. The Minister previously told us that it would be a matter for the courts to determine, but that represents an abject failure by the Government to do their job. Are they really saying to trade unions that they can face damages of up to £1 million if they fail to comply with the Bill, but that they will have to wait for a court to decide what they need to do to avoid that liability? That is ludicrous, dangerous, and a potentially disastrous situation for any trade union to be in. This amendment removes Government interference in lawfully and democratically made decisions by an independent non-governmental organisation, and removes the completely disproportionate risk that trade unions face if they fail to adhere to the undemocratic, unspecified and unconscionable requirements of this provision.

Rachael Maskell: I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the jurisdiction of trade unions. I have said this in the House before, but Government Members just do not seem to understand it. It is the members of the trade union who determine what happens within a trade union—it is not a general secretary or even an executive, but the members—so how are they, as individual members, going to instruct workers to attend work?

Justin Madders: That is really a question for the Minister, and one that I think the Government have failed to answer adequately. I think the point my hon. Friend makes is a good one. When Conservative Members traduce the union barons, they actually traduce every single member of the trade union who has voted in support of industrial action, and I am afraid that that is no way for any Government to operate.
I would ask Conservative Members, not that there are many here, to consider what the Bill actually means. Representatives of trade unions will be required to encourage, cajole, advise, pressurise or even demand that their members cross a picket line. They will be asking trade unions to actively go against the very thing they were set up to do. I would say that it is a bit like asking a Conservative MP to vote in support of higher taxes, but I guess that, with the highest tax burden in over half a century, we may have to drop that particular analogy.

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I am a proud trade unionist, but I am also a former schoolteacher. I am concerned not only about the administrative burden that this requirement   for employers to serve work notices on staff will create, but about the risk of damaging relationships within the workplace. He is talking about people being required to cross picket lines, and that would most definitely be a case in point. I am very concerned, because schools and hospitals in particular operate through staff collaborating with each other, and risking those relationships is a very dangerous thing to do.

Justin Madders: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why so many employer organisations are also against this Bill, because they understand what it will do for industrial relations: it will make them worse, not better. I would ask Conservative Members to think carefully about what they are asking trade unionists to do, which is to go against deeply held, genuine and sincere beliefs—

Clive Efford: I intervene to give my hon. Friend a chance to get his throat in order. Does he agree with me that, first and foremost, the Prime Minister withdrew his Labour on Monday with the intention of not showing leadership, which is a remarkable feat on the part of a Prime Minister? Does my hon. Friend agree that these are the death throes of a Government who have really run out of steam? They are trying to blame everybody else for what is going wrong. They are going for a cheap headline and have created this piece of legislation, which is anti-trade union and anti-democratic, to try to throw the blame on to the trade unions and workers, and away from where it really lies—with this Government.

Justin Madders: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—I think my voice has returned, thankfully—and he is absolutely right. This Bill is counterproductive because ultimately it will not quell the concerns of many people in those sectors that have taken industrial action. Taking away the right to strike will not take away people’s concerns; it will just make them worse, and it will prolong anxiety, concern and discord.
Again, I ask Conservative Members to think about what they are asking trade unions to do—to go against deeply held, genuine and sincere beliefs. Whether or not they agree with the right to strike, do they really think in all conscience that this is something that sits comfortably with notions of dignity, respect and freedom? How would they feel if they were compelled to take actions in direct contravention of their own values?
Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 4B. It attempts to tackle the pernicious heart of this Bill, which seeks to destroy the basic freedoms that the trade union and Labour movement have fought to secure over the course of history. From the Chartists to the founding of the TUC, the trade unionists at Taff Vale and the formation of the Labour Representation Committee, the working people of this country have faced a long and arduous struggle to improve their working conditions, and fundamental to that struggle has been the right to withdraw labour. When Conservative Members inevitably vote down this amendment, they are saying to their constituents—the teachers, doctors, nurses, bus drivers and train drivers—that their voice does not matter and that, should they dare to withdraw their labour in search of better terms and conditions, they do so at their own risk.

Chris Stephens: The shadow Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. The heart of the Lords amendment is to protect workers who have been dismissed so that they have recourse to a tribunal. That is a fundamental human right, is it not?

Justin Madders: One would have thought so, and that is probably why the Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed great alarm at this Bill. If the Government want to give themselves the power to threaten every firefighter, every teaching assistant and every paramedic with the sack when they exercise their democratic right to withhold their labour, they should think very carefully about what they do with that power, because in a free society no Minister should hold that power—not that Ministers seem to understand what this Bill actually does, because the Minister said last time:
“The reality is that nobody will be sacked as a result of this legislation.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 103.]
I know that the Government chose to bypass the normal line-by-line consideration of this Bill, but one would have hoped that the Minister had read as far as the schedule, because it does actually contain the power to sack people for going on strike.
Even if the Government do not understand the powers they are giving themselves under the Bill, they ought to understand the principle of the withdrawal of labour in the event of a dispute. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has mentioned, many Conservative Members withdrew their labour the other night. In fact, 200 of them had no difficulty in doing so. Indeed, former Prime Minister Johnson withdrew his labour after he disagreed with the report from the Privileges Committee. So they should understand that the principle of people withdrawing their labour is an important one. It is a basic and fundamental right that every one of our citizens should enjoy in a free and democratic society. We are not serfs required to provide toil to the lord of the manor or conscripts engaged in a war against an invading force; we are citizens of this country, and in a free country the right to withdraw labour should be protected and respected.
Even if Conservative Members believe that the requirement to send someone into work against their will is somehow consistent with a free and democratic society, they should at least consider the fact that the Bill as it stands means an employee can be sacked for failing to comply with a work notice, even if they say they have not received it. Yes, someone can be sacked for not complying with a work notice without any challenge to it legally, and they can also be sacked for not complying with it even if they have never seen it. How is that justice, how is that reasonable and how is that good industrial relations? It is a recipe for injustice, for toxicity and for abuse by employers who want to get rid of the most troublesome employees.
I will not list all the organisations that have condemned this Bill, but two of the main employers in the key rail and health sectors have called this out for what it is, because they know that rather than resolve industrial disputes, this Bill will prolong them. They know that the kind of restrictions this Bill places on people are anti-democratic and not in the best traditions of this country. It is no wonder that even members of the Cabinet have criticised this Bill. Indeed, this week we had the shameful news that the United Nations, through  the International Labour Organisation, has called on the Government to respect international law, such is the threat that this Bill poses to it. No, we cannot accept this tawdry, vindictive, unworkable disgrace of a Bill. This Bill attacks the people who keep this country going, and the sooner the Government realise that the politics of division will not work, the better.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alan Brown: I want to start by simultaneously condemning and praising the Lords, because although I still disagree with the premise of unelected peers for life, I respect the work ethic of some of those who have been trying to improve this God-awful Bill. It also shows that, while the Tories can stuff the place with their cronies and donors, the issue with cronies and donors is that they cannot be bothered to turn up, do their work and vote accordingly, as in the case of Baroness Mone, who is absent after pocketing millions of pounds for selling dodgy personal protective equipment to the NHS. On the Lords as an institution, we have a perfect illustration of the Labour leader’s continued flip-flopping. Overnight he has gone from wanting to abolish the Lords to now planning to stuff it full of Labour peers when he gets into government. It is pretty shameful.
I am disappointed that the Lords did not hold out on an amendment to restrict the Bill’s extent to England only, which would recognise the position of the devolved Governments.
I commend the Lords in their consistency on other matters pertaining to the Bill. Lords amendment 2B would require the Government first to publish draft regulations, and then to undertake impact assessments on their effects and to consult with representatives of trade unions and employees. That is hardly an onerous request—in fact, it is just putting in place basic transparency. Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Tories have been eager to tell us that it is about health and safety, minimum service levels and allowing the public to get to work. If that is the Bill’s real intent, and it is not a draconian attack on the rights of workers to strike, surely the Government should be willing to comply with the requirements of Lords amendment 2B.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment perfectly encapsulates the rhetoric of the Tory Government about balancing the impact of regulations on the general public with complying with workers’ rights to strike. Given all the quotes and speeches from Tory Ministers and Back Benchers, surely they should be content with the amendment and be confident that they can comply with it and set out the aims of any draft legislation, allowing the public to understand its intent and impact. If the Government were true to their stated aims, the amendment could mean them backing trade unions into a corner with transparency. At a stroke, the amendment would take away claim and counter-claim on the impacts of any regulations, as the impact assessments and consultations would be crystal clear to everyone involved. What is it that the Government are objecting to, because the Minister certainly did not make that clear earlier? The Minister said that the consultation is already closed, which means there is no transparency going forward.
In voting to disagree with the previous Lords amendments, the Government said that it was because the Bill already contains adequate consultation requirements.  I have already illustrated that the Government are completely at it with that statement. If we look at proposed new section 234F of the 1992 Act, the Secretary of State is required only to consult such persons that he or she considers “appropriate”. That clearly leaves the door open to consult nobody at all.
Subsection (5) of proposed new section 234F advocates that any consultation requirements can be satisfied before the passing of the Bill. How is that even logical? According to the Government, adequate provision takes the form of consulting who they decide they want to consult, and in the absence of any doubt, any past consultation, past Government rhetoric or past announcements will count as satisfying these non-consult requirements. That is certainly a much easier pathway for the Government than having to bother to undertake impact assessments, proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in the form of a Joint Committee to review these impact assessments. The reality is that, with Lords amendment 2B, Parliament has a choice to take control or to cede unlimited powers to a Secretary of State.
Turning to Lords amendment 4B, I refer to the Government’s response to Lords amendment 4, which shows their real intent. They have said that the reason for objecting to Lords amendment 4 is
“in order for the legislation to be effective, it is necessary for there to be consequences for an employee who fails to comply with a work notice.”
The Government rationale is clear that the legislation is intended to be the “sack the workers, sack the nurses, sack the doctors and sack the train drivers Bill”, plain and simple. Forget the pretence that this legislation brings the UK into line with other countries that the Government keep telling us have minimum service levels legislation on the right to strike, because this legislation brings the UK into line not with other democracies, but with Russia and Hungary.
Lords amendment 4B provides some protection for workers—protection from malicious employers and protection for individual workers and, in particular, union representatives to stop them being targeted by employers. Surely the Government must agree with proposed new subsection (1) under Lords amendment 4B that a person is not subject to a work notice if they have not received it. This Government demand that people prove who they are before they can exercise their right to vote, but at the same time they seem to believe that a worker can be sacked for not complying with a work notice they have not actually received. It is preposterous. Proposed new subsection (2) confirms that the employer has to prove that the work order was served and received in compliance with subsection (1). Any decent employer would do that anyway, but it makes sense for an employer to have to prove that to ensure no unfair dismissal claims. Otherwise, I return to the point that the sacking of workers is clearly a key outcome and sanction that this Government intend.
No longer is there any need for illegal secret blacklisting, because all employers now have to do is the sack awkward squads for not complying with notices they did not receive. That is how open to abuse the legislation is in its current form, and it is outrageous that the Government are moving against Lords amendment 4B. They are bringing in legislation to make it easier to sack workers   when we do not have enough workers to fill vacancies. It is truly perverse that the Government are sticking with such draconian legislation to make it easier to sack key workers.
Lords amendments 5B, 5C and 5D attempt to provide some protection for the unions. It is crystal clear that the Government are trying to break the unions by making them agents of employers to make employees comply with work notices. It is utterly bizarre and outrageous. Unions are formed by worker members and are intended to work on behalf of those members. They cannot and should not be forced to work against the wishes of their own members. Amendment 5B is a much slimmed-down version of Lords amendments 5 to 7, which the Government rejected because they want the legislation to have maximum impact in attacking workers and union rights.
Lords amendment 5B also removes the outrageous aspects of proposed new section 234E of the 1992 Act, which allows employers to recover losses from a union, even if the union has taken the reasonable steps under proposed new subsection (1). Thinking about that subsection alone, unions can be forced to pressure workers to comply with work notices, which is an infringement of the aims of a union. Even if a union caves in and takes reasonable steps, the employer can still sue the union for losses. How can that be right if the union is complying with the legislation?
In summary, the Lords amendments are intended to protect workers from being targeted by work notices; to ensure that an employer serves and proves receipt of a work notice so that workers cannot be sacked for non-compliance with a notice they have not actually received; to make sure that workers are not sacked for non-compliance full stop, which is in line with international norms; and, finally, to prevent unions from being forced to undermine their agreed action on behalf of members. The Government’s intent is clear, so I hope that the Lords stick to these simple, basic protections. Yet again, this Government are going to dismiss basic rights and freedoms out of hand. To call themselves a party of workers is a complete and utter shambles.

Richard Burgon: I will briefly touch on the reasons why I think it is important that this elected Chamber does the right thing and rejects the Government’s opposition to the message from the other place. I will focus on two amendments—Lords amendments 4B and 5B—that go to the heart of this matter and the heart of this pernicious Bill. They relate to the protection of employees and protections for unions.
The context for this Bill, as have said before, is that we have a Government who are increasingly desperate, draconian and authoritarian. We have seen that in the restrictions on the right to peaceful protest and on people’s ability to cast a vote at elections, and now we see it with this draconian attack on trade unions. How can anybody in this place believe that it is in any way acceptable for workers to be sacked if they fail to cross a picket line in a strike that has been lawfully called and conducted, even under the restrictive and onerous requirements we have in this country? How can that be viewed as acceptable in any way?
I will conclude on the protection for unions. I do not want to detain the House for long, because a few people want to speak and there is limited time. Lords amendment 5B is fundamentally necessary because the Bill is an unprecedented attack on the role of trade unions in our society and our democracy. The Minister should not need to have it explained to him that trade unions in our society are independent bodies representing workers. Trade unions in our democracy are not meant to be agents of a Government. They are not meant to be agents of an employer. They are not there to ensure that the bidding of a Conservative Government or a big corporation is done. Unless Lords amendment 5B is backed, unions will be required to take steps to persuade their members to cross picket lines and go to work during lawful disputes, or they will face gargantuan fines.
That is truly chilling. It changes the role of trade unions in our society. That is no small matter; it goes to the very core of what the trade union movement in this country has been about for hundreds of years. Failure to support Lords amendment 5B is a failure to stand up for a basic democratic principle. Conservative Members can snigger about it, but there was a time when even Conservative MPs understood the independence of trade unions.
Let us be clear: the Bill allows the Secretary of State or an employer to set minimum service levels and to issue work notices requiring workers to break a picket line and go into work, and unless we back Lords amendment 5B, the Bill will require trade unions to help the Government and the bosses to achieve that aim. It is draconian and anti-democratic. It should be opposed by everybody in the House, whether or not they are a socialist, a trade unionist, a Conservative Member, a Labour Member or a Member of whatever party. It should be opposed by anybody who believes that trade unions in our democracy are there to represent the will of the workers and their members, not that of the Conservative Government or the boss of a company. It is basic democratic stuff that takes us back hundreds of years. The legislation needs to be resisted if we in this place have any respect whatsoever for our democracy and the democratic role of our independent trade unions, which are there to support the workers, not to support the Government or bosses against their will.

John Martin McDonnell: All I can say about legislation like this is that the Government should be careful what they wish for. This is possibly the most significant piece of trade union legislation introduced in this country for a century—right back to Taff Vale—because it strikes at the basic human right to strike. Because it is so significant, wise people in the House of Lords—I rarely say that—have tabled Lords amendment 2B. All they are saying to the Government is, “This is such a significant piece of legislation that you really do need to consult on its detail and implementation.” Without that detailed consultation, I think that a whole range of problems will be exhibited.
I will give one example from my constituency, which I have raised before. How can there be a minimum level of service for air traffic controllers? It does not exist. Therefore, in effect, the legislation means that constituents  who are air traffic controllers will not have the right to strike any more. If that is what the Government want, they should be honest and explicit about that.
Again, the Government should be careful what they wish for. Individuals who are trade unionists will see the Bill as the withdrawal of their right to strike, because at any time an employer will be able to say to that individual, “You have got to work.” If that individual says, “Well, I want to go on strike,” they could be sacked, and they would have no protections left in law. That is an attack on the basic right to strike. What will those individuals do? Large numbers of them will not comply. Then what happens? It will escalate into an even more significant dispute.
The legislation also says to a trade union, completely contrary to three centuries of history, “You will be required to discipline your members for not working.” That basically means that the Government will cause conflict within that particular union, or across the trade union movement overall. Maybe that is what the Government are all about.
When the legislation was brought forward, I thought that the motivation for it was one of two things. The first possibility was that the Government were panicking because of the scale of industrial action taking place, not realising that the vast majority of those industrial disputes would, as always, be settled by negotiation. That is what has happened with most of them. If it was not panic, it was something more sinister. It was Ministers thinking, “Why waste this opportunity? Why not bring forward the legislation that we have wanted for generations to undermine the right to strike?”. If that was the Government’s motivation, I tell them that they cannot implement legislation, no matter how hard they try, if it goes against the grain of our history, which is to respect workers’ rights, because those have been fought for over generations.
The Bill will exacerbate the industrial relations climate in this country. The Government should at least accept the Lords amendments, because they go some way towards establishing a piece of legislation that may be seen as implementable through consultation and through the protection of rights. If they go ahead like this, I can see nothing but further conflict. That will undermine the commitment across the House to try to develop a growth economy again, rather than one held back by disputes, some of which have been engineered in recent times because of the cost of living crisis.

Chris Stephens: I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In opening the debate, the Minister skirted round amendment 4B and just said that the Government were opposed to it. A number of us intervened at the time, but I really do think that he needs to consider the Government’s position carefully, particularly on that amendment, because it gets to the heart of the Bill and why so many of us are expressing concerns about the attacks on natural justice and on human rights.
Lords amendment 4B asks that employees receive a work notice in good time. It seems fairly uncontroversial that a work notice should be issued to a worker in good time if they are to attend their work. If we do not accept the amendment, we will end up with a scenario where someone returns to work after a day of industrial action and is told they are being dismissed with no  evidence whatsoever that they have been given a work notice. Of course, the Government do not want to give the responsibility for the work notice to the employer, so the employer will have no obligation at all to serve an employee with a work notice, but they could dismiss them the very next day after industrial action.
Let me emphasise that the employee would have no recourse to an employment tribunal. Surely it is a fundamental human right, and fundamental to natural justice, that if a worker is dismissed, they have recourse to a tribunal to challenge that decision. That, to me, seems fairly self-evident and obvious, but the Government are allowing a situation where rogue employers will be able to dismiss a worker for taking part in industrial action with no recourse to a tribunal, and they will not need to evidence the fact that that worker was served with a work notice.
The Government find themselves in a preposterous situation by opposing Lords amendment 4B, so I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of these questions. Is it really the Government’s position, as I have outlined, that it is okay for an employer to dismiss those on strike and that they will not need to provide evidence that the employee was obliged to go into work? It is ludicrous.

Rachael Maskell: While the Government clearly do not want workers to have access to justice through the employment tribunal, of course those workers’ human rights will have been infringed, so will they not have access to other courts to challenge this egregious legislation?

Chris Stephens: Hopefully the Minister will answer that question.
The Minister did say in answer to my intervention that it happens in other countries. Yes, it happens in Russia and Hungary. Are Government Members really going to justify the Bill by saying, “It happens in other countries like Hungary and Russia”? Is that the Government’s example? Let me name another country—Italy, where workers can be disciplined but short of dismissal. But the Government do not want to follow the Italian model; they want to be in line with Hungary and Russia. It is incredible that the Government have found themselves in that position.
I hope that the Lords hold firm if the amendments are rejected. Amendment 4B is a fundamental principle of natural justice, and I hope the Minister will explain why he is against that principle for workers in this country.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank Members for their contributions. It is fair to say that we will have to agree to disagree. We believe that this legislation is a proportionate response that gives the Government the power to ensure a safe level of service in areas such as health, transport and border security, so that people’s lives are not put at risk and they can work, access healthcare and safely go about their daily lives.
I will touch on one or two points raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I have a great deal of time for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), though perhaps we do not agree so much in this debate. He asked who we   govern on behalf of, and he listed very important people in our society—our nurses, train drivers and border security officers. But is he properly representing the many other stakeholders in this debate, such as pub landlords, restauranteurs, hoteliers and people seeking urgent medical treatment or trying to get to work or to see family? There have been 600,000 cancelled appointments as a result of the strikes of recent months and £3.2 billion of economic detriment—much of that to our restaurateurs, hoteliers and pub owners. It is important that their voices are heard, too.

Justin Madders: I hear what the Minister is saying, but that is an argument to ban strikes altogether. Is that not what he is doing?

Kevin Hollinrake: We have been clear that there is a balance between people being able to seek industrial action and being able to go about their daily lives. That is the balance that we are trying to strike. He asked if we fear scrutiny; not at all. What we fear is delay. That is what the Opposition parties are trying to bring about: delay in wrecking amendments.

Andy McDonald: Will the Minister expand on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and give us a list of the people whom he thinks should be able to go on strike? Who are the ones he approves of?

Kevin Hollinrake: Any person who is legislated for in these measures should be able to go on strike, subject to minimum service levels. It is quite clear, and we have been consistent all the way through.
In response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), our objection to the amendments is the delay that they will cause. We want to ensure that people can go about their daily lives. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised some points about reasonable steps. Unions will not somehow have to compel people to go to work; we are asking them to undertake reasonable steps to ensure that people comply with a work notice. In fact, we were willing to set out in the Bill what those reasonable steps would be, but the right hon. Gentleman’s counterparts in the other place rejected such measures.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) talked about the independence of unions; of course we respect that. It is true that if a union fails to take reasonable steps, the strike would be unprotected, as it would if the trade union failed to meet other existing requirements in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, such as balancing requirements. This is not a departure from the existing position.

Alan Brown: The Minister keeps talking about wrecking amendments, but how is obliging an employer to ensure that an employee has received a work notice a wrecking amendment?

Kevin Hollinrake: I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to other points in Lords amendment 4B: proposed new section 234CA(4) of the 1992 Act is a wrecking amendment because it says there is no contractual obligation for someone to comply with a work notice. That drives a coach and horses through the Bill.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) talked about how other jurisdictions deal with requiring people to go to work under a work notice. He may be aware that in France, people can be subject to criminal charges if they do not comply with a work notice. These are proportionate measures. We must make the view of the elected House as clear as possible, and avoid any further delay to fulfilling our duty to protect the lives and livelihoods of those we represent.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2B.

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 205.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 2B disagreed to.
More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings onthe Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 22 May).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4B.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 209.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 4B disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 5B, 5C and 5D.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 214.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments 5B, 5C and 5D disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendment 2B, 4B and 5B, 5C and 5D.
That Kevin Hollinrake, Mike Wood, Alexander Stafford, Jane Stevenson, Justin Madders, Navendu Mishra and Alan Brown be members of the Committee;
That Kevin Hollinrake be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Ruth Edwards.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Retained EU Law  (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Consideration of Lords message

After Clause 16 - Environmental protection

Michael Tomlinson: I  beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15D.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 42D, and Government motion to disagree.

Michael Tomlinson: This House has been asked these questions before and twice this House has said no, with an overwhelming majority. We are asked to consider, for a third time, two amendments, neither of which is radically different from the amendments we have already rejected. It will come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that I invite the House, once again, to disagree with the Lords amendments.

Patrick Grady: Will the Solicitor General give way?

Michael Tomlinson: Because the hon. Gentleman asks with a smile every single time, of course I will give way.

Patrick Grady: I congratulate the Solicitor General on his consistency at the Dispatch Box, which was lacking throughout most of the rest of the Bill’s progress, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), the Labour Front Bencher, said last time we were here. The selection list says:
“Environmental protection; Parliamentary scrutiny
Govt motion to disagree…Govt motion to disagree”.
That sums it up, doesn’t it? The Government disagree with enhanced environmental protection and they disagree with enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. That was the whole point of Brexit for the Government, wasn’t it?

Michael Tomlinson: I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Gentleman, not least because I like him a lot and because of his smile, but also because of his warm welcome for the Government’s position. I entirely disagree with him; he is wrong. On the last occasion he intervened, he did not hear the whole debate. I invite him to do so this time because, when he does, he will see precisely what the Government’s position is.
I make it clear that we are not rejecting these amendments out of hand. As I stressed in our last debate on the Bill, and as acknowledged by Baroness Chapman in the other place, we have listened to their lordships’ views. We have worked collaboratively on a number of issues and made fundamental changes to the Bill. There has also been significant collegiate working on the reporting requirements that will provide robust scrutiny. Parliament will be able to examine the Government’s plans for reform up to six months ahead of the legislation being tabled, thanks to the regular reporting brought in by that amendment.
Lords amendment 42D is based on the process contained in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which is a very different beast from a very different Bill designed for a completely incomparable power. A legislative  reform order is capable of operating on any statute, including Acts of Parliament, whereas the relevant regulation-making power here is limited to secondary retained EU law, which is not primary legislation.
Further, I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord Hope when, in the other place, he described the process in his amendment as “light touch”, not least because of the fundamental issue of time, which is crucial when we consider how long parliamentary processes can take. Lords amendment 42D envisages up to 60 sitting days for Parliament to consider and debate proposals for statutory instruments, and potentially time after that for further scrutiny before an SI can be made. By adding such significant time for additional scrutiny, this amendment would place in doubt the effective use of the repeal and replace powers before they expire.
Perhaps that is the intention. This is the additional friction that was so neatly alighted upon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) during one of our previous debates. Additional, deliberate friction, as my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place
“is not about additional parliamentary scrutiny; this is actually about stopping Parliament acting in this area.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2023; Vol. 831, c. 117.]
It is perhaps worth noting that, since 2008, only 35 LROs have been brought forward.

Bill Cash: My hon. and learned Friend is making some excellent points. He has just referred to Parliament as a whole but, in this particular context, a difficulty arises in subsections (6) to (8), which confer a power on the House of Lords to, let us be honest, effectively block proposals if it decides so to do. That is an inherent objection.

Michael Tomlinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Knowing him, he will develop those points in due course. He agrees with what my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, that this is not about additional scrutiny so much as about preventing Parliament from acting.
It is right to say that Lords amendment 42D has been given serious consideration, as were other iterations previously before this House. It is disappointing and hardly conducive to constructive conversation or detailed debate to resort to insulting hon. and right hon. Members, as unfortunately happened in their lordships’ House yesterday. Apart from my noble Friend Lord Callanan, their lordships have not grappled with the provisions already in the Bill for a sifting committee, the detail of which is found in schedule 5, and which will result in significantly more scrutiny than EU law had when it was first introduced into our law.
On Lords amendment 15D, I have little to add to what has been said many times. We have repeatedly made commitments, at every stage of parliamentary passage, that we will not lower environmental protections. Our environmental standards are first class: the Agriculture Act 2020, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the landmark and world-leading Environment Act 2021.
The Labour party has a choice, both in this House and in the other place. Will it choose to frustrate this necessary post-Brexit legislation, this natural next step that was always going to have to happen? Will it continue  to delay the delivery of the significant opportunities that await us? The Government want to get on with the job. Enough is enough.

Justin Madders: We are back once again, and maybe it will be third time lucky, although it does not sound like it will be. The House will no doubt be familiar with our position, that the Bill, as originally drafted, was reckless, unnecessary and undemocratic. The Government talked about a bonfire of regulations when the Bill first came before the House, but I would instead describe it as a scorched earth policy that made for a good headline but completely failed to grasp the scale and complexity of the task before us. That the approach has been at least partially reversed is of course welcome, but concerns remain. The Lords amendments before us will deal to some extent with some of the outstanding issues, and we therefore intend to support them.
I turn, first, to Lords amendment 15D. I pay tribute to Lord Krebs for showing maximum flexibility in trying to find something that will gain Government support. I fear that it sounds as though his efforts will be in vain, because although he has taken the approach that the Government’s problem with his previous amendment was its wording rather than its substance—on the basis of the Government’s claim not to want to water down environmental protections—I think he was hoping that reasoned argument and compromise might see a resolution to this endless game of ping-pong. The sad reality is that he has been looking for reason where none exists.

Margaret Greenwood: My hon. Friend is making an important point. A number of constituents have written to me in recent weeks to set out their concerns and point out that we are in a climate emergency. They believe it is essential that the current level of protection for the environment is not weakened. In addition, they are concerned as we have a responsibility to not just ourselves, but future generations. Does he agree on that?

Justin Madders: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I agree with it, which is why we are continuing to support the Lords on this amendment.
The Minister has referred to the conditions of previous iterations of this amendment as both “burdensome” and “unnecessary”. It is of course complete nonsense that something can be both of those things at the same time. A burden would be an additional requirement, but the Government also consider such amendments unnecessary. That implies that these are things they intend to do in any case, yet in their eyes they somehow remain a burden. I am sorry to say that I have yet to alight on any rational explanation for that stance, and poor Lord Krebs has stripped away his amendment to the bare minimum now in the futile search for common ground. His new version of the amendment has just two elements, instead of the four in the previous version. The remaining ones are non-regression on environmental protections and consultation with relevant experts; he has dropped the requirements for compliance with international obligations and transparency in reporting on expert advice. I would have thought that the two dropped conditions ought not to have been considered  too troublesome for a Government committed to maintaining environmental protections, but we are where we are.
The Lords amendment therefore simply puts in the Bill what the Government say they intend to do in any event, yet the objections remain. We should be mindful of what the Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, said in its evidence on this Bill, which was that it
“does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection.”
I find myself both bemused and alarmed by the Government’s intransigence on this issue. When they are not listening to their own watchdog and instead present arguments that disintegrate on the barest of examinations, it is right that we should continue to press for this amendment. If everything that was said at the Dispatch Box became law, we would not need legislation, but I am afraid the longer this goes on and the more unreasonable the objections become, the stronger the case becomes for putting in the Bill the protections the Government say they want to see.
The confidence that the public have in this place has been severely tested in recent years. If our democracy is to work, and if we want people to engage and participate in the democratic process, what a Government say has to be honoured and has to be seen through, otherwise we risk forever losing trust in the political process. Once that trust has died, it cannot be brought back to life by magic or by good intentions. So I say to Conservative Members: think very carefully about how you vote on this Lords amendment. If they trust the Government to keep their word and can find a way to reconcile that blind faith with the Government’s refusal to put those promises in law, they should vote down the amendment. But if that word is broken, they should not ever expect anyone to trust the Conservative party to stick to its promises on the environment or any other matter, ever again.
Lords Amendment 42D tackles one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill, clause 15, which the Hansard Society called the
“‘do anything we want’ powers for Ministers.”
I remind Members that the Hansard Society is a body whose opinion ought to mean something. It describes clause 15 as that because, as has been extensively covered previously, it empowers Ministers to revoke regulations and not replace them; replace them with another measure that they consider
“appropriate…to achieve the same or similar objectives”;
or to “make such alternative provision” as they consider “appropriate”. Those are extremely broad powers covering broad areas of policy.
If this Bill has taught us anything, it is that the reach of EU regulations permeates every aspect of life and covers many important issues that most people would expect Parliament to have a say over: consumer rights; public health; the environment; and, of course, employment rights. These regulations cover many things that many people would want to see protected, and many more things that nobody said would be removed or watered down back in 2016.
I pay tribute to Lord Hope for trying to find a compromise that the Government can accept. I fear that, as with Lord Krebs, his efforts will be in vain. In  short, this latest amendment would see a Committee of this place sift regulations made under the clause, following an explanation by the relevant Minister as to why that particular regulation is required or desirable. It should be noted that Lord Hope made it clear in the other place that this Committee would be a Commons one only; how ironic that an unelected Lord is the one pushing an amendment to give the elected Commons more say in how our laws are decided, and that the Commons is resisting this move. Perhaps he, at least, understands what taking back control was meant to be about.
The Lords amendment further provides that once the Committee has considered the Minister’s explanation, it can, if it wishes—it is not required to—draw special attention to the regulations in question, following which the Minister must arrange for them to be debated on the Floor of each House. The Minister must then have regard to any resolution of either House and may, but is not required to, amend their proposal in the light of what has been resolved. The Committee can also recommend that the proposal should not be proceeded with, but, in the true spirit of taking back control, this House will get the final say on that. Is this not what the true spirit of Brexit was really about: the democratically elected Members of this House asserting influence and passing our laws?
I am sure that we will hear, once again, the fallacious arguments that because these laws were passed in the first place without proper democratic involvement, that means, by some twisted logic, that it is fine now to hand all the power over these laws to Ministers, without any reference to Parliament. Those arguments do not wash because they come from a place that says that anything that originates from the EU is bad and we therefore do not need it. Tell that to the millions of people enjoying paid holidays for the first time, to the disabled passengers who were given priority on transport for the first time and to the millions of people who have kept their job because of TUPE protections. I do not believe anyone who voted to leave the EU voted to dispense with those rights. If it is the Government’s intention to change any of those protections, or the thousands of others that our citizens enjoy, it is only right that this place has a say in that.
I am afraid the lack of transparency that this Bill represents, and the sidelining of genuine scrutiny, show up all those arguments that were made back in 2016 about sovereignty for what they are: a fig leaf for a select few to shape and determine the future of this country without reference to Parliament, and certainly without reference to the people they are supposed to represent. Democracy in the 21st century does not die in one swift act, but erodes over time, bit by bit. This Bill is another example of that, and until this Government restore basic democratic principles, we will do all we can to oppose it.

Bill Cash: I have read with great interest the record of the proceedings yesterday in the House of Lords, noting some extremely wise and democratically well judged comments by those such as Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Hamilton of Epsom. I note, however, that Lord Clarke of Nottingham, with whom  I have crossed swords a few times in the past, to say the least, was conspicuous in his support of Lordusb Hope of Craighead’s amendment, as were a number of others I do not have time to mention, although their appearance in the Division list was entirely predictable.
I wish to add that the wise words of the Lord Hodgson and Lord Hamilton reflect not only a question of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to the elected House, but the elected will of the people, both in the referendum in 2016, the anniversary of which is almost upon us, and in the general election of December 2019, where there was a massive majority to get Brexit done. It is therefore also a manifesto commitment, clear and unequivocal, which invokes the Salisbury doctrine. The Government have stood firm in these proceedings; I was extremely glad to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General yet again showing the degree of diligence and determination that is necessary, and I know he will continue to do so in this matter of retained EU law. I also speak as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, whose report was unequivocal on the subject. I am glad to say that the Government supported the amendment I proposed, which is part of this exchange between the Lords and the Commons.
Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Pannick are on the same page with regard to what they term a “constitutional principle”. I note the judicial and legal enthusiasm for the amendment they have put forward, which demonstrates the issue of parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, Lord Hodgson rightly referred to “parliamentary sovereignty” when he read out what I had said in the House of Commons on the subject the other day, about the Lords’ “intransigence” in this matter. The amendment is a matter of democracy, as well as constitutional principle, because it involves the elected House and its majority view.
Coincidentally, it is also a matter that, at bottom, is about judicial difference of opinion at the very highest level. That was expressed by one of the greatest jurists of modern times, namely Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in his magisterial essay, “The Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of Parliament”, in his book, “The Rule of Law”. In fact, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts glanced at that point in his remarks and—it is more than merely interesting to note, most unusually, but driven by deep frustration—he criticised Lord Hope of Craighead by name, I am sure with the greatest respect, along with Baroness Hale of Richmond, for their views on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty and the courts. I note the clause we are debating is entitled “Parliamentary scrutiny”, which involves parliamentary sovereignty and the overriding role of the elected House of Commons in particular, as regards subsections (6), (7) and (8).
The essay is well worth reading. In a pertinent passage, Lord Bingham describes what is at stake and why he, for his part, could not accept, I am sure respectfully, the views of Lord Hope of Craighead as being correct. It is a very much a question of attitude of mind, which is a parallel and intertwined issue, regarding the sovereignty of the House of Commons as the elected House, by contrast to the unelected constitutional position of the House of Lords, not to mention the judiciary. The Bill demonstrates an intransigence, with a failure to appreciate the importance of the role of the elected House.
Lord Bingham invokes the words of Professor Goldsworthy, whom he regards as the magisterial authority on matters relating to parliamentary sovereignty and its derivation from democratic decision making by the electors. What Professor Goldsworthy says, and which Lord Bingham says he agrees with, is:
“What is at stake is the location of the ultimate decision-making authority—the right to the final word.”
In the case of the Bill, the final word must be with the House of Commons as the ultimate decision-making authority, particularly in the context of ping-pong.
At that point, Professor Goldsworthy is referring to related matters, but he might as well be referring to ping-pong between the Lords and the Commons. He identified the importance of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as ultimately belonging to the House of Commons, in respect of that final word, and he emphasises the fact that on the attitude and view of some judges, it would be their word, other than Parliament’s, that would be final.
Goldsworthy goes on to say:
“this would amount to a massive transfer of political power from parliaments to judges”.
I would argue it could equally apply to a transfer of political power of the same order to the House of Lords. Moreover, he states:
“it would be a transfer of power initiated by the judges to protect rights chosen by them rather than one brought about democratically by parliamentary enactment or popular referendum.”
He adds:
"it is no wonder that the elected branches of government regard that prospect with apprehension”.
Personally, I could not agree more and it is significant that Professor Goldsworthy’s words echo down the decades on this subject, as well as Lord Bingham’s agreement with them. Ultimately, it is about the same question and it is specifically related to the very words he chooses, namely legislation
“brought about democratically by parliamentary enactment”,
therefore by the House of Commons, rather than the House of Lords.
The words he chooses are “democratically” and “popular referendum”. In this context—now, in the present day—they refer to the outcome of the popular referendum of Brexit, the anniversary of which we will celebrate in two days’ time. This is the constitutional principle that must prevail, and the manifesto that goes with it from the general election. The final word on ping-pong should be determined by that principle.

Alyn Smith: Here we are again—plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. I always remember that nobody ever criticised a speech for being too short, and I think I can excel myself this afternoon.
Our position, like the Government’s, has not changed in relation to the Bill. We think the Bill is unnecessary. Retained EU law became law when we left the European Union. The special status that we have heard so much about does not, I believe, stand any sort of academic analysis. It is open to the Government to retain, repeal or change any measure on the statute book without this provision. We think this provision augments the powers of the Executive in relation to this body of law, not on the basis of what the law does, how effective it is or how up to date it is, but on the basis of where it came from. That is a poor premise.
I find myself in the strange position of backing the Lords amendments. The SNP does not send Members to the House of Lords because we have issues with the democratic legitimacy of the place, but I am glad of their work on this. Where I say this is a bad Bill, and where I fear it will be bad law, I would also put on record my appreciation of the very hard-working Clerks and others who have got it to where it is today. I disagree with the politics of this, not their work.
On amendments 15D and 42D, the environmental non-regression clause, that is taking Ministers at face value. If Ministers do not want to regress, then let us put that on the face of the Bill, which would reassure an awful lot of people.
Scrutiny measures are foreseen within the Bill. We acknowledge that, but we do not think they are enough. This is a new set of powers for the Government and I think it needs a new set of scrutiny powers for this place and for the House of Lords, to make sure that there are brakes on what they might do with those powers so given.
The legislative consent motions have been denied by the Holyrood Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. That should give any Unionist in this place cause for concern about the Bill, both in the way it is being taken forward and the attitude that it shows to the devolved settlement. So we are against the Bill and we are backing the Lords amendments to make the Bill a little less bad. I am weary of our entrenched position and a dialogue of the death, so I draw my remarks to a close.

Robert Buckland: In another attempt to recreate complete déjà vu, I follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) again, as I did some weeks ago. I will not repeat the point I made to him about his remarks on devolution, in an otherwise beautifully constructed speech, with which I respectfully completely disagree.
We are left with two issues. The first issue can be dealt with fairly swiftly. I do not see the need to put on the face of primary legislation a non-regression clause. The Government have been crystal clear about their approach to environmental standards and I know from my own inbox experiences, and from those of many other right hon. and hon. Members, that the British public just will not have a regression from high environmental or food safety standards. They are the sort of standards where we have led global opinion about regulation. With respect to Lord Krebs, I do not see the need for that amendment.
However, I will press the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), on amendment 42D. While I accept that in its detail there might be some further work, I think 60 days is a long time. In effect, that would mean 60 working days, so if one started in late July, the matter may not be resolved until October or November. I can see that is an issue, but I pray in aid what the noble Lords said about the need to disaggregate this issue from the issue of Brexit. It does not matter about the source of the law or where it comes from; this is a question of the ability of this place—Parliament—to scrutinise the operations and decisions of the Executive.
I am always interested to listen to the careful words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I thought that his exposition of Lord Hope’s  position on parliamentary sovereignty was a fair one. He and I actually agree quite strongly about parliamentary sovereignty and the need to avoid the trend in the noughties—before the current Supreme Court—to downplay the role of parliamentary sovereignty to suggest that, somehow, we have moved on from the age of Dicey, and the role is no longer unqualified. I think he and I agree on that—we are both defenders of sovereignty—but to pray in aid an argument about ceding powers of the judiciary is rather odd bearing in mind the context of the amendment. The amendment is all about giving more power to this place and, indirectly, I accept, to the other place.

Bill Cash: I made a very careful distinction. I appreciate the point that my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to make, and accept, of course, that Lord Hope of Craighead is a very distinguished judge and a member of the Supreme Court. I thought that it might just be relevant to draw attention to the fact that, in the context of parliamentary sovereignty, Lord Bingham used some quite trenchant words with regard to the judgments that he had observed both from Lady Hale and from Lord Hope. That was all.

Robert Buckland: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. I think that we are on the same side on this. I have always been extremely vigilant in observing, scrutinising, criticising and making my own comments in lectures outside this place about the dangers of going down that road and of not understanding that, far from being mutually contradictory, the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty are both sides of the same coin. If we do not have strong parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law itself is undermined. The rule of law is a political concept rather than the law itself, and, I think, that that is sometimes misunderstood. It is the duty of Conservatives, from my hon. Friend right through to me, to remind this place and other places about the importance of these principles. We agree on that, but that is not the precise context of this amendment. The amendment is legitimately and properly seeking to make sure that this place has a role in the scrutiny of the revocation of legislation.
I do not accept the arguments that there is an attempt, certainly by the mover of this amendment or of some of the others who spoke in the debate, to try to frustrate the purpose of this important Bill, which I support. We are at a stage now where, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, we should not concern ourselves with the Salisbury Acts, because the Lords have given us a Second and Third Reading, and that convention relates to the commanding heights of a Bill, but we are now down to the dirty detail, and that is what we are talking about. Therefore, it is important that we lean into this process in as sensible a way as possible to see whether there is a potential compromise—either by a reduction in the number of days, which I would agree with, or, indeed, by looking again at the precise role of the other place with regard to the approval or otherwise of any regulation. That is what I would be seeking to do if I were in my hon. Friend’s place, because I detect that there is, if not a head of steam, a determination by the noble Lords to press the Government on this particular issue.
As I have said before, if we start to take the “B” word out of this issue and look at it on the basis of parliamentary scrutiny, then perhaps we can take the heat out of the debate and have something far more considered and reasonable.

Bill Cash: My right hon. and learned Friend may be just ducking an issue, which is that, actually, it is not about the “B” word or Brexit as such; it is about parliamentary democracy and sovereignty, the general election and the referendum as well. We are talking about a massive amount of law. I am glad to note that the Government accepted my proposal that we should examine the list and have a proper list. However, having said that, I am afraid that I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. He is doing his best to find a compromise, but I do not think that a compromise is legitimate in these circumstances.

Robert Buckland: I listened with care to my hon. Friend. Although he and I are on other sides of the argument, we have always had, I think, a very strong mutual regard for each other’s position and the way in which we put our arguments. I am afraid that I do not agree. It is absolutely right to pray in aid the democratic decisions that have been made by the British people and this House, but we are also here, I think, as guardians of this place. It is important to note that, when we created retained EU law, which he and I were heavily involved with, we said at the time, either explicitly or implicitly, that we would, in good order, look carefully at the body of retained EU law, and that we would get rid of what we do not need—I am absolutely up for that, as it would be good, tidy law-making and doing service to the statute book—but at the same time we would retain what we regard as important safeguards or regulations that underpin particular activities. That is good for the rule of law and good for certainty, and we should remember that. I do not think that the bulldozer approach is the right one; the scalpel surely should be applied to these regulations, so that we get it right.
Therefore, in closing, I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to consider carefully whether, through further amendment and change, we can strike the right balance between the need to fulfil the objectives of this important Bill and to make sure that this place is not lost in the rush to revoke or amend regulations. There may be a time, even with sunsetting, that we will no longer be the party of government and we need to remember that we should be here to defend the position of this House irrespective of who might sit on the Treasury Bench. On that note, I urge my hon. and learned Friend to think again about amendment 42D, but, otherwise, I am in full support of his remarks.

Stella Creasy: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). I have much sympathy for him and his attempts to speak to deaf ears.
We are back dealing with the renegade masters of this Government and their ill behaviour—the arrogance they have yet again expressed towards the concept of parliamentary scrutiny. People watching these proceedings —few, I am sure, on a lovely Wednesday sunny afternoon—will understand what is being said: “Our way, or no way  at all.” The amendments are a reasonable way of trying to address the loss of parliamentary scrutiny—the ministerial power grab—that this Bill represents.
It is seven years since we were told that Brexit was all about taking back control; seven years that we have been waiting for any kind of benefit at all; and seven years in which our constituents have certainly seen the damage that has been done. The only benefit that the Bill will bring is to Downing Street. It takes back power not to the people, but to the Prime Minister. That is why thousands of people have been writing to their MPs, begging and pleading them to look at the damage that the Bill would do to the powers in this place and to their voice in that process. Following the logic of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), we could call anything Brexit. He wants to say, “Well, we had a referendum, so this piece of legislation, as it is currently written, must go through this place unamended.” Well, I would quite like all the money that we were promised for the NHS also to go through this place, but we cannot always get what we want. My constituents are concerned about democracy; that is why people writing to us; that is why there is a concern about the process that the Bill would set up. The powers that it gives, that continue way beyond any sunset date at the end of this year, are over consumer rights, environmental standards and employment rights.
Let us be honest: in a week when the reputation of Parliament could not get much lower, any attempt to restore the ability of a Member of Parliament to represent their constituents, propose amendments or participate in scrutiny—not just shout at Ministers about something that they will pass without challenge—cannot be a bad thing. I welcome their lordships having stood up for the role we could play. We have seen a week in which some MPs would rather have gone to watch the cricket than come to Westminster to do their job, but some of us still think that there is a job worth turning up for and that we should do that job.

Robert Buckland: rose—

Stella Creasy: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees. I have never seen him at the cricket. I will gladly give way.

Robert Buckland: Some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), love cricket, but we can do both, and that is why we are here.

Stella Creasy: In fairness to the hon. Member for Stone, I recognise that he was here on Monday and is here today. On the powers of this Bill, he is like the Earl of Lucan—leading his cavalry into the charge of the Light Brigade—because he has already seen the arrogance of Ministers in responding to his concerns. I will never understand why he is giving away the power that he has as a Back-Bench MP to challenge for things—things that I might disagree with, but that, in a democracy, I would stand up for his right to argue for—but he is doing that today and he has done so consistently because he thinks this Bill is Brexit. It is not.
This Bill is a complete break-up of our parliamentary system, because it gives Ministers powers over 4,000 areas of legislation, using statutory instrument Committees with hand-picked groups of MPs to wave through any  changes that Ministers want to make. And what has the hon. Gentleman got out of the process? He has got a list of the things that are not going to be deleted that he would like to see deleted. What a glorious victory that is. Little wonder the Earl of Cardigan would be looking at him—

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Stella Creasy: With the greatest respect, I have listened at length to the hon. Gentleman and I am conscious of time. I simply recognise the parallel with the charge of the Light Brigade in that, at first, the cavalry was lauded, and only later did we see the damage and destruction and only then did the British people hold them accountable. It will be the same when he argues against the very principle of ping-pong, which is about scrutiny.
The hon. Gentleman matches the arrogance of the Minister, who first of all challenged the proposals put forward by the Lords on the basis that they were a novel process—they were not; they were based and rooted in parliamentary expertise from a former parliamentary Clerk, who had plenty of experience of the different mechanisms of scrutiny that can be brought to bear—and now complains that the Lords, having listened to the debate in this place and tried to find a compromise, have come forward with another proposal. That is not good enough for him either.
Yet, all along, the Minister wants to claim that the Government have listened, while the Government have failed to table a single alternative proposal or to make a single suggestion to reassure those of us concerned that, if we give up 4,000 areas of legislation to Ministers to use SI Committees, we may as well all go home, because we will be bystanders to the parliamentary process. It is sheer arrogance to suggest that scrutiny is additional friction; it is called asking questions. Even Back-Bench Conservative MPs would think that that is a good idea, because it is a mistake to think any Government get it right all the time. That is why we have scrutiny and a process of trying and testing legislation.
“Computer says no” speaks to the real truth behind Brexit and behind this legislation, which is that the Government never intended to listen to the British people at all, because they never intended to give powers to the people who represent them. That is why it is an insult to democracy to see all this. Constituents across the country will be deeply concerned about a Bill that will allow the Government to revoke or water down legislation without any scrutiny at all, beyond possibly waving it through a five-minute Committee sitting.
People are concerned about environmental standards, which Lord Krebs is trying so hard to protect, and which the Government say they will protect—yet they will not write that down. That should be very telling, because we shall see that that becomes a developers’ charter. We shall see, for example, people trying to develop Holton Heath, which I am sure the Minister is well aware of, a site of protected heathland in his own constituency. Development was refused for that site on the basis of the special protection areas and special areas of conservation—both regulations that will be abolished under the Bill, unless the Government write them back in.
That development attempt was rebuffed, but the Minister’s constituents can have no confidence that development will not be proposed on that site again if we lose those pieces of legislation. The fact that Ministers will not write in the Bill that that absolutely will not happen, and the fact that we have not had that clarity over those pieces of legislation, should give his constituents pause. It would certainly give my constituents concerns about somebody seeking to develop the Walthamstow wetlands, for example.
The proposals before us today reflect the Lords listening and trying to find a way forward. They are talking about a non-binding form of legislative scrutiny, whereby the Commons could suggest amendments to a statutory instrument. The Government could even refuse to accept those amendments, but it would be a process of scrutiny and accountability—the mildest form we have seen—and yet, still, computer says no.
The Minister might think it is acceptable to be this arrogant about the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Conservative Members might shake their heads and say, “The good chaps and chapesses of this Government could not possibly do anything wrong. Of course they will be sensitive to the electorate.” I am not sure the electorate think that that is the case. If the only opportunity for challenge and scrutiny is at a referendum or election, our capacity to make good laws—the whole point of this place—is gone.
I am sure, based on what he just said, that the hon. Member for Stone will now be leading the campaign for the abolition of the House of Lords—or at least for an elected House of Lords. Certainly I presume he will not take up a seat in the other place when he leaves the Commons. But that is the point, is it not? Our time here might be fleeting but, if we start unpicking the strands of parliamentary scrutiny, the processes that exist and our capacity to speak up for our constituents when their rights are affected, the damage will be everlasting.
The Minister might dismiss people such as me, still looking for those elusive benefits of Brexit seven years on, but he cannot dismiss the concerns of thousands of constituents. I hope he will finally engage in a serious process with the Members of the House of Lords and stop dismissing them, because they come with the very best of intentions. If we are absent at work and not doing our job of defending democracy, somebody else must do so. I hope that this House will support Lords amendments 15D and 42D, because our environment and our parliamentary democracy deserve better.

Michael Tomlinson: With the leave of the House, I thank all right hon., right hon. and learned and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I was going to say I need not go into the fine details but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) mentioned the “dirty detail”, perhaps I can touch on one or two of them.
I thank the shadow Minister for his engagement, as always, and for giving a welcome to the change of approach—although not a full welcome, of course—during today’s debate. I am grateful to him for his words. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for reminding us about parliamentary sovereignty and the wise words of Lord Bingham. I know that his  words will be studied carefully. I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) during the course of these debates; he is right that he is consistent, as the Government have been consistent throughout the process.
I disagree fundamentally with what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) says. She reminds us of the charge of the Light Brigade, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon first introduced to the debates on this Bill some two debates ago. She mentioned friction and made a complaint about Back Benchers, but the suggestion of friction came from a Back Bencher, as I mentioned in my opening speech.
The hon. Lady says there is a failure to listen, but I disagree. There is a lot of listening and there is a disagreement. It is not the same. One can listen and one can still disagree; I disagree, having listened to what she says. One thing I am grateful to her for, though, is bringing cricket into this debate. That is always a welcome subject of distraction, so I am grateful to her for that and I look forward to reading it back.
If I may engage directly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon, I am grateful to him for his words. I agree with him that the example he gave, of 60 sitting days starting in July, is a significant period of time. I am afraid he and I will not agree entirely on that, and he will not be surprised by that. I encourage him to look at schedule 5 and the sifting Committee. I know he understands the point and he heard my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who explained two debates ago the detailed work that his European Statutory Instruments Committee does. He diligently gets on with that work—he described it as dry work, but it is important work and I know he will continue that work with his Committee.
I was delighted to see agreement between my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon; it was similar to the agreement between my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—a rare moment, but an enjoyable one nonetheless. I simply repeat to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon that our concern with the approach is that, by adding such a significant amount of time, the amendment would place in doubt the effective use of the repeal and replace powers before they expire, and that is an important part of the Government’s programme for smarter regulation.
It is vital that we bring this most important Bill to Royal Assent as quickly as possible. This House has made its view clear twice before and I ask that it makes its view clear for a third time. I encourage their lordships to take note of the strong view from this House and the fact that the will of this House should be respected.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15D.

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 208.
Question accordingly agreed to.
More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings onthe Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 24 May).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 42D—(Solicitor General.)

The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 209.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 42D disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments;
That Michael Tomlinson, Mike Wood, Alexander Stafford, Jane Stevenson, Justin Madders, Taiwo Owatemi and Alyn Smith be members of the Committee;
That Michael Tomlinson be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Jacob Young.) Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), business in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Jacob Young.)

Opposition Half Day - 18th Allotted Day, First PartOpposition Half Day

Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)

Roger Gale: I inform the House that I have selected amendment (a), which is in the name of the Prime Minister.

Neil Hudson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the only veterinary surgeon in the Commons, I am passionate about all aspects of animal health and welfare, and I seek your advice. The Opposition motion that we are about to debate seeks to take control of the Order Paper and timetable a Bill, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) (No. 2) Bill, about which we have no details whatsoever. How is it possible to debate the motion, which could have unintended and adverse consequences for many aspects of animal health and welfare, with no Bill, and no details? Or are the Opposition aiming to reintroduce the Government’s original Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill? It would be helpful to have clarification on what we are debating and voting on today, and what it may mean for the health and welfare of the precious, much-loved animals in our country.

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. The motion seeks to take control of the Order Paper on 12 July, so that the House can consider a Bill on animal welfare on that date. If the motion succeeds, the content of that Bill could then be scrutinised on that date, according to the timetable set out in the motion. The fact that the text of the Bill is not yet available is not a procedural bar to considering today the motion before the House.

Jim McMahon: I beg to move,
That—
(1) On Wednesday 12 July 2023:
(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;
(b) any proceedings governed by this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
(d) at 3.00 pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this order and, notwithstanding the practice of this House as regards to proceeding on a Bill without notice, call the Leader of the Opposition or another Member on his behalf to present the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) (No. 2) Bill of which notice of presentation has been given and immediately thereafter (notwithstanding any rule of practice of the House as regards a matter already decided this Session) call a Member to move the motion that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) (No. 2) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;
(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.
(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (19) of this order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) (No. 2) Bill in the present Session of Parliament.
Timetable for the Bill on Wednesday 12 July 2023
(3)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Wednesday 12 July 2023 in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 5.00 pm.
(c) Proceedings on any money resolution which may be moved by a Minister of the Crown in relation to the Bill shall be taken without debate immediately after Second Reading.
(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 7.00 pm.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Wednesday 12 July 2023
(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(5)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day
(8) If any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords on any future sitting day, the House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.
(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—
(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order), any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;
(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.
(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:
(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;
(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—
“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Reasons Committee
(12) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.
Miscellaneous
(13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.
(14)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(15)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this order apply.
(18)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—
(a) the Leader of the Opposition; and
(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition.
The motion is in my name, and the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others. We tabled it because Britain is a nation of animal lovers who rightly demand world-leading standards and protections; I know that many Members from across the House share that desire, as do their constituents, and that many of them are not comfortable about being in this position, whereby a Bill that they had supported was withdrawn by their Government. This is also about holding the Tory Government to account for not delivering on their manifesto promises, because we believe that promises should be kept.
Of course, Labour is and always has been the party of animal welfare. The last Labour Government left a proud legacy of delivering on promises to protect animals. We banned experiments in the UK on great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas in 1997. A Labour-led Home Office ended licences for testing cosmetics on animals in 1998. Labour established the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, and led the way on research on alternatives to animal testing, and Labour ended cruel fur farming in England and Wales by introducing the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. Despite vociferous opposition from the Conservatives, Labour made it illegal to hunt wild animals with dogs in England and Wales, passing the groundbreaking Hunting Act 2004. It was also Labour who stopped the use of drift nets and so helped to protect dolphins, sea birds and other marine animals. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) introduced the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, which finally called time on mutilations such as the docking of dog tails, and made owners and keepers responsible for ensuring the welfare of their animals. We can also be proud of our record on halting the decline of farmland birds while increasing rare and woodland bird populations and, in 2009, it was the Labour Government and Labour MEPs who worked to secure an EU-wide ban on the commercial trade in seal products.

Janet Daby: I thank my hon. Friend for outlining so many successes of a Labour Government and commend him for reintroducing the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill today. Does he agree that, if Government MPs try to vote down the motion, they will be voting to continue puppy smuggling, puppy farming, pet theft and live animal exports?

Jim McMahon: It is hard not to agree with that position. Members have a choice today. The benefit of our democracy is that Members get to cast their vote, and declare their view and their representation on behalf of their constituents. There is nothing in the Bill that Conservatives should not support. It was in the Conservative   manifesto. It is letter by letter, word by word and paragraph by paragraph a Conservative Bill in name and content. There is no reason not to support it.

Marsha de Cordova: My hon. Friend has highlighted an important point. Despite multiple reassurances by the Government, they have now made yet another U-turn by shelving the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, making a mockery of all the fantastic work of many organisations—such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in my constituency—that have been working tirelessly to significantly improve animal welfare. Does he agree that the Government now need to set out what provisions they intend to introduce that would prevent things like puppy smuggling, but also make abductions of dogs an offence?

Roger Gale: Order. Interventions are supposed to be interventions, not speeches. The Chair will take account of Members intervening at length in terms of the speaking order when we come to that part of the proceedings.

Jim McMahon: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention—it is an absolutely accurate interpretation. I was at Battersea Dogs and Cats Home in her constituency when news came that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was being ditched. The irony was not lost on a charity that campaigns and works so hard for our animals.
Labour has always placed animal welfare high on our list of policy priorities, which is why the Government have been dragged here kicking and screaming today. The Tories have promised, promised and promised again on animal welfare, but they fail to deliver.

Theresa Villiers: Labour fought as hard as it possibly could to reverse the referendum result and keep us in the single market. If Labour had succeeded, we could not have banned live exports or cracked down on illegal puppy imports.

Jim McMahon: That begs the question of why on earth the Government are so bashful about bringing forward new powers and freedoms as a result of us leaving the European Union. Surely we should be embracing them—bringing them forward for the benefit of our much-loved animals—but they have not done so, even on an issue that is not controversial across the House. I assume and hope that there is support to end puppy smuggling and stop the export of animals that we care about. I will come on to that later, but I am afraid that it is a missed opportunity, despite Government Members’ comments.

Philip Dunne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim McMahon: I will make a bit of progress first, if that is okay. In the end, it is those promises that—if we are not careful and they are not kept—undermine the very foundation of our democracy. Let us be clear: at the last general election, every single Conservative MP stood on the platform of a pledge to voters that they would deliver the priorities subsequently set out in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. It was a key part of their 2019 manifesto.
What has happened since 2019? Well, a fair bit. First, we have witnessed a Prime Minister who did not survive a lockdown party, or at least his catalogue of lies that followed it. We had a second one who did not even survive a lettuce and a third one who will be lucky to survive the post-election fallout, but, regardless of leaders, a manifesto stood on by every single Conservative Member should stand the test of time. The former Prime Minister who has left the House in disgrace promised the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill but, like much else, he failed to deliver. According to members of her own party, the next Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss)—who left Downing Street in disgrace and undercut our animal welfare protections in her botched trade deals—wanted to ditch the Bill, not just failing to deliver that promise but actively selling us out.

Neil Hudson: Animal welfare unites us in humanity and across this House. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, by creating the Animal Sentience Committee, whereby Governments of all political persuasions have to be cognisant of and pay due regard to animal welfare, is a huge benefit to animal health and welfare?

Jim McMahon: The Act certainly has that potential, except for the fact that the committee has not even been set up yet, so let us make some progress on that. On a matter of principle—by the way, I do take at face value the compassion for animals, which we do share across the House—the question is, how are we going to get there? How are we going to increase the protections for the animals that we all say we care about and that we know the nation loves? In the end, whatever is said here is slightly academic compared with the vote that will take place later, because that is what constituents will judge MPs on—not warm words, but the voting records that we all have to defend.

James Wild: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim McMahon: I am going to make a bit of progress, but I will take interventions a bit later.
The current Prime Minister, who during his leadership campaign last summer promised he would keep the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, now seems to have killed it. It did not have to be this way because—let us be clear—there are always choices to be made. Let us be clear about the choices that have been made: the choice to give the green light to criminals who smuggle tens of thousands of vulnerable, under-age, unvaccinated, diseased, mutilated and heavily pregnant animals into the country in the cruellest possible ways; the choice to give a thumbs up to puppy farms and irresponsible breeders who treat animals horrifically, breeding at high volumes for profit, with no respect for the health and welfare of puppies or their parents; and the choice to allow the distress of primates that are being kept as pets unsuitably, when they need specialist care, specialist treatment, diets and socialisation with other primates. This also shows utter contempt for British animals that are exported and transported on excessively long journeys and in dangerously appalling conditions. Why? For the purpose of fattening or inhumane slaughter.

Jane Stevenson: The hon. Gentleman will know that no animal has been exported for many years now and the Government are committed to putting that into law. My question is on puppy smuggling—Lucy’s law. I was honoured to meet Lucy, the Cavalier spaniel, and I have two Cavalier spaniels. This Government have done an amazing amount to clamp down on puppy farms. Puppy smuggling is a separate issue. I have received repeated reassurances that the Government are making time and their method—private Members’ Bills—is going to make this legislation happen more quickly, saving more animals. Political game playing on something so sensitive is irresponsible.

Jim McMahon: To be absolutely clear, this is not the Labour party framing our own motion and own draft Bill, and bringing it to the House and trying to bounce the Conservative Government. This is a Government manifesto commitment and a Government Bill—word for word, sentence by sentence. There is nothing to disagree with. Let us be clear as well that it passed on Second Reading. It is not as though we are starting from scratch; it passed on Second Reading unanimously with support from Members on all sides of the House.

Philip Dunne: First, the hon. Gentleman has told us that we have been brought kicking and screaming to this place. This is an Opposition day debate. It is his choice as to what he puts up as the subject for this debate. Secondly, he has not responded to the point of order, which he could have done to settle the issue, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). [Interruption.] I know it is not his place to do so, but he could have made it clear in his opening remarks that he has not published a Bill, which is normally the case when someone puts forward a motion such as this. Without any explanatory notes, we do not know what he is talking about.

Roger Gale: Order. I dealt with that issue very clearly indeed and the Speaker has ruled that the debate taking place today is orderly.

Jim McMahon: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You made that point in response to the point of order, and the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) will know that I do not have the facility to come in on a point of order, but I can and I will cover that in my speech. To be clear, and I have been clear: this is a Government Bill. There is no other Bill to publish—it does not exist. The only Bill that exists is the Bill that passed on Second Reading in this House and that Members voted for. Let us move on from the smokescreen here. Members know exactly what Bill we are debating, because they have been lobbied by their constituents and by charities, which desperately want to see these protections brought forward.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this Government Bill back to the Floor of the House so that Members can decide whether to proceed with it. The point is that this Government made a commitment to improve animal welfare laws, but this same Government have a track record, having already backtracked on banning fur imports and the import of foie gras. Is this not  just another logical step in them saying one thing about animal welfare and doing something completely different?

Jim McMahon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us be clear about some of the tensions here. The fear was never that the Labour party would vote down protections for animals; our history and legacy is about protecting animal welfare. The real fear is that the protections that we and many on the Government Benches believe should be in place are seen by some on those Benches as red tape and bureaucracy and as things that should be banished and not supported. That is a real issue. If I were the Prime Minister with a majority and I could not even get an animal welfare Bill through the House of Commons, I would be wondering what power and authority I had in my own party, frankly.
Let us reflect on what we were told when the Government did a U-turn. We still need to find out how many animals have been affected in the time between the election and the first promise to bring in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in 2021 and today. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), said:
“The Bill risks being extended far beyond the original commitments in the manifesto and the action plan. In particular, Labour is clearly determined to play political games by widening the Bill’s scope.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 495.]
I am guessing from the comments today that the Whips have sent that out in the briefing note because that is exactly what we have been hearing today. I am afraid it does not pass the test because what Tory Members really mean is that Labour has ambition for animal welfare. We want to see the protections strengthened—absolutely—but not in a way that would derail the Bill. That was not our intention and it never would be.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim McMahon: I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale.

Mike Amesbury: My hon. Friend referred to Second Reading. The Dogs Trust tells me that, since Second Reading, it has been caring for 485 smuggled puppies. Does he agree that we could put a full stop to that by backing this motion today?

Jim McMahon: It is not only that. Animals are not an object or a possession; they are part of our family in many ways. Just think about those smuggled dogs being a member of your family—the dog that looks after your children and supports them growing up, or gives compassion to an older person. The idea that puppies have been smuggled in the numbers that just one charity reports—there are many charities in this space—says it all.
In the end, is it not the truth that the Government are running scared—not from the Opposition, although they should be, but from opposition from their own Back Benchers?

Robbie Moore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim McMahon: I will make some progress first. Regardless of their majority, the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister cannot govern if they cannot even get this Bill through the House. What is the  point of a Government with a sizeable majority when in the end they admit that they might be in office, but they are very much out of power?
The problem with the Bill cannot be parliamentary time, which we hear about all the time in the Tea Room and the voting Lobby. We have frustration from Members, many of whom trek hundreds of miles to be here representing our constituents, with a Government who are so chaotic and unconfident about getting their business through that whole segments of the day are completely written off as Members are sent out of the House early after votes. Even yesterday, we were sent home hours early because the Government did not table any business for us to debate and discuss. The idea that the House is so overwhelmed by business that we just do not have the time to discuss this Bill is ridiculous. There is a will, there is time and there is no reason not to do that other than the fact that the Tories cannot even guarantee how their Members will vote. That is the real issue.

Abena Oppong-Asare: I thank my hon. Friend for showing absolute leadership at this difficult time while the Government are falling apart, particularly when it comes to animal welfare standards. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are so concerned about the Government’s U-turn. Does he agree that Britain is a nation of animal lovers, unlike this Tory Government?

Jim McMahon: I am not sure that I would go as far as to say that Government Members do not care about animals. I think they do, but they probably care about their own jobs a bit more, and too many of them probably do not want to be seen voting for a Labour motion for fear of losing the Conservative Whip. That is a shame, but I suppose that in the end, that is politics.
I want to be really clear about what Labour mean by the motion and why we care about this. When we talk about animals and why they are so important to the British public, we are not talking about possessions or objects. We are talking about the puppy that grows up with a child, through their teenage years and into adulthood. We are talking about the dog that is the companion of an older person, making sure that they do not have to go through the long nights alone and they have a reason to go out during the day. We are talking about animals that are very much part and parcel of our families and our national psyche. That is why it matters so much. The fact that the Government do not understand that really speaks volumes.

Andrea Jenkyns: I would like to put it on the record, as somebody who has been outspoken on this matter and got a petition going, that I have not been threatened once by the Whips about having the Whip withdrawn. The Government have not threatened me or anybody else.

Jim McMahon: I appreciate the intervention. I have the Downing Street letter in my hand, and there is nothing in it that I would disagree with. The hon. Member’s real difficulty is that the Government do not agree with it, which is why they have not given time for the legislation. If there is no overarching threat of Whips being removed or future positions being lost, there is no reason for Members not to join Labour in the Lobby and support the motion when the vote comes.

Iain Duncan Smith: I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that there is the issue, and then there is the politics. If the Opposition had genuinely wanted to put pressure on the Government to adopt the Bill, they should have tabled a simple motion that said, “We would support the Bill being adopted”, as that would have got everybody in favour of it. He knows very well that, by trying to take over the business, the motion is actually about the politics. If we really care about sentient animals—Government Members do, and I want to speak today about my criticisms of the Government—surely there would be purpose in us joining together and finding a better way of getting the Government to do what they said.

Jim McMahon: I am happy to explain the process by which we got to the motion, if that is helpful, although I am not sure whether it will convince Government Members to vote with us later. To be clear, if there had been a route to reintroducing the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill as it stood after Second Reading, that would be in the motion before us, but given the sunset clause built into that Bill, the advice was that it died weeks ago, so we could not do that. That is why the motion speaks of a No. 2 Bill, but word by word, line by line and paragraph by paragraph, it would be exactly the same Bill. In a way, with respect, the right hon. Member is dancing on the head of a pin, because it is the same Bill. On that basis, there is no reason not to support it.
We are not discussing the Labour party trying to bounce the Government into any position whatsoever. We do not even set out the detail of the Bill, partly because it is not a new Bill—it is already there—but also because all we are doing is voting on one issue alone, which is whether Parliament should have the time to debate and vote on a matter. What we debate and vote on and what the Government move on that day is for them. I accept that it will require a bit of work, but it is for them to bring forward the Bill, allow amendments and do the normal things that we do in the House before we come to a vote. All the motion does is allow time for that process to take place. That flies in the face of the “if only we can find a way of working together” idea. There is a way in which we can work together to achieve that end.
I have set out Labour’s history on animal welfare and exactly what we are to vote on. I have set out the Conservatives’ tensions, which have been absolutely on display today and in the run-up to the debate, but I hope that I have given Government Members enough confidence that there is a bridge here to cross. They do not have to stubbornly say, “It’s an Opposition day, so we can’t be seen to support the motion” when they know that the charities emailing them and the constituents reaching out to them really care about this legislation and, in the end, want them to do the right thing. When the vote comes later, I urge Members across the House to get behind the motion and finally allow time for the kept animals Bill to pass.

Trudy Harrison: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” in line 1 to the end of the Question and add:
“this House notes the Government’s statement on 25 May 2023 regarding the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill; and welcomes the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries’ commitment that the Government will be taking forward measures from the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill individually during the remainder of this Parliament, including on the keeping and licensing of primates, livestock worrying, export of livestock, pet theft and the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets.”
We are a nation of animal lovers. Animal welfare has been the priority of this Government since 2010. Internationally, our animal welfare standards are already top class—according to the World Animal Protection index, they are the best not just in the G7 but in the entire world. Our manifesto commitments demonstrate our ambition to go even further on animal welfare. To remind the House, we have already committed to bring in new laws on animal sentience, introduce tougher sentences for animal cruelty, and implement the Ivory Act 2018 and extend it to other species. We have ensured that animal welfare standards are not comprised in trade deals. We have cracked down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, and we will bring forward cat microchipping. We will ban the keeping of primates as pets and imports of hunting trophies and endangered species. We will ban the cruel live shipment of animals and ensure that, in return for funding, farmers safeguard high animal welfare standards.

Sarah Champion: I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. It had cross-party support. We would have got it over the line and saved the lives of thousands of animals.

Trudy Harrison: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member understands that the measures in that Bill were important. I will set out later just how we will achieve each and every one of them.

James Sunderland: The House will know that the Home Office made the decision recently to ban animal testing in toto across the UK, even though it has been ruled lawful in the UK and the EU. Does the Minister agree that the UK has a much higher bar for animal welfare in testing than the European Union?

Trudy Harrison: My hon. Friend is spot on. The Home Office banned new licences granted for animal testing on chemicals exclusively used for cosmetics.
On top of that very long list, in 2021 we published our ambitious and comprehensive animal welfare action plan. The plan sets out the breadth of work that we are focused on pursuing through this Parliament and beyond, related to farmed animals, wild animals, pets and sporting animals, including legislative and non-legislative reforms in relation to activities in this country and abroad. Since publishing the action plan, we have already delivered on four key manifesto commitments: we have increased the penalties for those convicted of animal cruelty; we have passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 and launched a dedicated committee: we have made microchipping compulsory for cats as well as dogs; and we have announced the extension of the Ivory Act that came into force last year to cover five more endangered species—hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus.
Even before the action plan was launched, we were cracking on with key reforms. Since 2010, we have delivered a wide range of valuable reforms that make a real difference to animals, including raising farm animal welfare.

Janet Daby: Many constituents have written to me really concerned that the Government have done a U-turn. They promised in their manifesto that they would deliver the policies set out in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. Could the Minister say why the delay and the U-turn have taken place?

Trudy Harrison: The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was not in the manifesto, but I think the hon. Lady is referring to the measures. I will set out in more detail how we will achieve those measures in the interests of animal welfare across single-issue Government Bills, private Member’s Bills, regulations and by working with the industry.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but the logic does not flow. There is a Government Bill. Why is she now saying that the Government will rely on private Members’ Bills to do what she has already introduced to this House? With the full support of the Opposition as well as those on the Government Benches, why does she not just crack on with it as a Government Bill?

Trudy Harrison: Absolutely. That is just what we will do. The track record speaks for itself.

Neil Hudson: As we have heard, countless numbers of puppies, heavily pregnant dogs and dogs that have had their ears horrifically cropped are smuggled into the country, and potentially thousands of horses are illegally exported to Europe for slaughter. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures the Government will bring forward in legislation will absolutely and unequivocally stamp out those horrific practices?

Trudy Harrison: I certainly do. I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention. There can be nobody more qualified and experienced in animal welfare than a vet, and he speaks with such sense.

Patricia Gibson: Will the Minister give way?

Trudy Harrison: I will just make some progress.
I will set out what has been achieved since 2010, with a wide range of valuable reforms that make a difference to animal welfare: implementing a revised welfare at slaughter regime and introducing CCTV in all slaughterhouses; banning traditional battery cages for laying hens and permitting beak trimming only by infrared technology; and raising standards for meat chickens. We have significantly enhanced companion animal welfare by revamping the local authority licencing regime for commercial pet services, including selling, dog breeding, boarding and animal displays.

Matt Rodda: Will the Minister give way?

Trudy Harrison: I will just make some more progress.
We have banned third-party puppy and kitten sales through Lucy’s law, introduced protections for service animals through Finn’s law, introduced offences for horse fly-grazing and abandonment, introduced new community order powers to address dog issues, provided valuable new protections for wild animals by banning wild animals in travelling circuses, given the police additional powers to tackle hare coursing, and banned glue traps. That is an important list, and it goes on.

Jane Stevenson: I want to reassure Opposition Members and my constituents that private Members’ Bills are extremely efficient. I received extremely good support from the Government while putting through my private Member’s Bill to get a ban on glue traps—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members might learn something if they listen. I am very pleased that Wales and Scotland followed, too. That Bill became law two years ago, if Opposition Members care to look it up in the House of Commons Library. Does the Minister agree that private Members’ Bills will enable this proposed legislation to come in more quickly, and will she reassure my constituents that, on things like pet theft, including the theft of cats, we can see real progress?

Trudy Harrison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To support enforcement, we recently supported private Members’ Bills to pave the way for penalty notices to be applied to animal welfare offences. At this point, I want to make particular reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). It is due to her sterling work on sitting Fridays that so many private Member’s Bills have been successful and enacted swiftly.

Angela Richardson: To echo the point that has just been made, currently in the other place is my Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, which will hopefully receive Royal Assent in this Session. It managed to get to the other place without being amended, because it came as a single-issue Bill. It could not be Christmas-treed like other Bills, which means it has been able to progress quickly through the Commons and then into the other place. Does the Minister agree that by taking elements of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and putting them into single-issue Bills, either through private Member’s Bills, presentation Bills or Bills introduced by the Government themselves, we will be able to get legislation on the statute book much more quickly—

Roger Gale: Order. These interventions are becoming outrageous. There are 22 Members who wish to take part in the debate. I am making a note, and I will not call people who intervene excessively.

Trudy Harrison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) made an accurate comment about the speed with which we have been able to support a large number of private Members’ Bills.
Many of our key reforms have also been made possible by Britain’s being outside the European Union. In respect of animal sentience, we have gone beyond the EU’s symbolic and narrow approach, which was riddled  with exemptions. Departure from the EU has made it possible to ban cruel live exports from ever happening again, and to tackle puppy smuggling with tighter import controls.
As well as legislating, we have launched a pioneering animal health and welfare pathway, setting out the way forward for improving farm animal welfare for years to come and building on the work that we have already done to improve conditions for sheep, cattle and chickens. We are working in partnership with industry to transform farm animal welfare on the ground through animal health and welfare reviews with a vet of choice, supported by financial grants. In addition to all that, we have given our support to a number of private Members’ Bills which are making their way through Parliament.

Alex Davies-Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Trudy Harrison: I am afraid I will not give way any further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) introduced a Bill to ban the import of hunting trophies, implementing another key manifesto commitment. There have also been private Members’ Bills to ban the import and export of detached shark fins and the advertising and offering for sale here of low-welfare animal activities abroad, for which I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford.
Our intention in presenting the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill to the House two years ago was to implement several of our ambitions, including our manifesto commitments to ban the live exports of animals for fattening and slaughter, to crack down on puppy smuggling, and to ban the keeping of primates as pets. There were additional measures seeking to prevent pet abduction, tackle livestock worrying, and improve standards in zoos. However, as the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer)—said in his statement to the House on 25 May, there have been a number of attempts to widen the Bill during its passage, beyond the commitments made in our manifesto and, indeed, our action plan. We are seeing yet more of this political game-playing today, with an Opposition motion attempting to take control of the Order Paper. That is absolutely not in the interests of animal welfare.

Louie French: While scanning the party political letter that the Labour party issued today, I noticed two things very quickly. The first was the lack of achievement on the part of the last Labour Government on animal welfare. The second was that, strangely, the candidate for the upcoming Uxbridge by-election was missing from a list of parliamentary candidates who apparently support animal welfare. Does the Minister know why that is, and whether we should conclude that—on top of Labour’s hated ULEZ expansion—there is a parliamentary candidate who does not care about animal welfare?

Trudy Harrison: I cannot answer that question, but what I can say is that I was with Steve Tuckwell in Uxbridge, and he clearly cares deeply about animal welfare and the environmental improvement plan.
We will continue to take forward measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, successfully and swiftly, during the remainder of this Parliament. Having left the EU, we can and will ban live exports for fattening and slaughter. I am pleased to report that there have been no live exports of livestock from Great Britain for fattening or slaughter since 2020. People have long been rightly anxious for the export of farm animals such as sheep and young calves for slaughter and fattening not to start up again, so our legislation will make that change for good. We will take forward our plans to ban the import of young puppies, heavily pregnant dogs, and dogs with mutilations such as cropped ears and docked tails. We have already consulted on that, and a single-issue Bill will allow us to get on with cracking down on puppy smuggling.
I am pleased to inform the House that we launched a consultation just yesterday on the standards that must be met by anyone responsible for the care of a primate. As we have heard, the needs of these captivating creatures are extremely complex, and we saw in the media just yesterday how primates can be horrifically mistreated. By requiring all privately held primates to be kept to zoo standards, we will stop primates being kept as if they were pets.
There is much more besides, from publishing updated zoo standards later this year in collaboration with the sector and the Zoos Expert Committee, to considering primary legislative vehicles to take forward measures to tackle livestock worrying, and our wider work, including through the countryside code, to raise people’s awareness of how to enjoy walking their dog responsibly.

Layla Moran: Will the Minister give way?

Trudy Harrison: We are also taking forward measures to make it an offence to abduct a much-loved pet.

James Wild: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Trudy Harrison: This Government share the public’s concern for the welfare of animals. That is why we have delivered an unprecedented package of welfare improvements since 2010. We remain steadfast in our focus on making good on those manifesto commitments, which mean so much to the British people.

Alex Davies-Jones: On that point, will the Minister give way?

Roger Gale: Order. The Minister has made it absolutely plain that she is not giving way.

James Wild: Will my hon. Friend give way? [Laughter.]

Trudy Harrison: That will remain our policy in this Parliament and beyond.

Patricia Gibson: I am delighted to participate in this debate, although I honestly wish it was not necessary—and it ought not to have been necessary. I and the SNP support the Opposition day motion.
Two years ago, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was introduced. The UK Government made a commitment to improve animal welfare, and we in the SNP supported that. Now, three DEFRA Secretaries of State and three Prime Ministers later, we are not one step forward. We are exactly where we were three years ago on banning foie gras imports, which the Minister noticeably did not mention; we are exactly where we were two years ago on banning animal fur imports, which the Minister did not mention; and we are exactly where we were two years ago on tackling illegal puppy and kitten smuggling. That is why my SNP colleagues and I support the motion for the measures in the Bill to proceed.
As the Minister has conceded, there were a lot of important provisions in the original Bill. It has now been quietly dropped, and we are told that the Government will take forward individual measures. I understand that those will be private Members’ Bills—I thought that Governments were elected to govern, but apparently not. We are meant to be convinced by that display, but why should we believe it?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on that point about private Member’s Bills. I was pleased to support the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on trophy hunting imports, which is currently in the other place. However, I met campaigners just yesterday who are very concerned that, due to machinations in the other place, the Bill will run out of time and never reach the statute book. Is that what we are to expect on animal welfare from this Government?

Patricia Gibson: The hon. Lady tempts me on to my next point. The Minister—ludicrously, despite her protestations—cannot tell us which provisions in the original Bill will not be brought forward as individual measures now that it has been dropped. I would really like her to tell us what measures the Government will not proceed with, how the priority list will be decided and when we will see the measures the Government are so keen to bring to this House—by whatever circuitous route. Will anything be presented before summer recess? Will we get through that priority list, such as it might be, before the next general election?

Alison Thewliss: I thank my hon. Friend very much for the point she is making. With every twist and turn in the farce around this Bill, I get letters and emails from concerned constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that it really does undermine the faith that many constituents have in democracy that the Government promised a Bill and had a Bill, and that we have lots of Government time and business collapsing early, yet no Bill is coming forward?

Patricia Gibson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and leads me on to my next point. We know that people right across the UK really care about animal welfare—all we have to do is give our inbox the most cursory of glances to see that. The people who write to us, email us and contact us on this issue will be deeply concerned about the antics—that is what they are—of the Government today as they twist on their own line. The Government have blamed everyone else, arguing that this Bill has been dropped because it had become too broad in scope, beyond what was originally intended.
The reality is that this Government are crumbling in the face of opposition from certain sections among their Back Benchers—the same kind of Back Benchers who were vociferously opposed to a ban on importing foie gras and fur products—as highlighted most eloquently by the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg). The UK Government do not want to engage in a fight with their own Back Benchers, despite these measures being in their manifesto. Foie gras production and fur farms were banned in the UK because of the cruelty they inflicted on living creatures, but this Government are perfectly content to outsource cruelty, which is political in itself, to appease some sections of their Back Benchers. This is truly shameful, and the Government may wish to reflect on it.
We know this is the case due to the very frank comments of the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who predicted in February that the animal welfare commitments in this Bill would be shelved, and he turned out to be right. It is worth reminding the House of what he was reported as saying:
“‘The way we treat animals, in particular farmed animals, is a hallmark of a civilized society and you should be constantly striving to do better,’ he says of the legislation that bans primates as pets, outlaws live exports and further regulates puppy farming.
Officially the government is still committed to the Bill…but the former environment secretary says he is hearing ‘mixed signals’ about whether it will, in fact, pass into law before the next election which must be held by the end of next year.
‘My sense is that they’re putting less emphasis on animal welfare, which I think is a shame.’”
We know the measures proposed in this Bill have huge public support. He continued:
“‘The annoying thing for me would be if the kept animal bill now also doesn’t go ahead because of a lack of resolve to take it through.’”
Interestingly, he refers to a “lack of resolve.”

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for setting out what is really happening here, because we know there is not only broad support for this Bill in the country but massive, overwhelming support for it in the House of Commons. It was introduced here, we supported it and now it has been shelved. That has more to do with the politics on the Government side of the House than animal welfare, doe it not?

Patricia Gibson: Indeed. It also tells us about the Conservative Back Benchers who rally around the right hon. Member for North East Somerset, who has been a busy boy.
The Minister can wriggle all she likes on the proverbial hook about individual measures and suchlike, but the fact is that the Government’s resolve to proceed with the Bill, as set out by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, has broken for fear it might upset some of their Back Benchers, who have fewer concerns about animal welfare than the people they purport to represent.
As for the Government’s so-called position of ditching this Bill and introducing individual measures, where is the timetable? The Minister stood up to defend the fact that the Government will be bringing forward various measures, but there is no timetable, no detail and no  priority list. Nothing. Clearly banning the importing of foie gras and animal fur and making real efforts to tackle puppy smuggling are off the table. We do not know if we will get anything before the summer recess. What we are left with are the shattered remains of what was a perfectly decent and comprehensive Bill.
This Bill largely relates to England, but its UK-wide elements are extremely important and they show where Scotland is being held back on animal welfare. The dropping of this Bill also means that the plans to ban live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through the UK, which all the major parties supported and which appeared in each of the manifestos in 2019, have also been dropped. That move was described by Compassion in World Farming as an unacceptable backtracking on animal welfare commitments, allowing this trade to continue.
It gives me no pleasure to say that the dropping of this Bill must be a cause of celebration for ruthless puppy or kitten smugglers—both of those trades are lucrative in their own right and there are insufficient deterrents to the barbaric practice. The dropping of this Bill must also have been good news for those who import foie gras and animal fur products into the UK. The dropping of this Bill is a depressing day for those who genuinely care about animal welfare. For all the fights that the UK Government like to pick with the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government passed legislative consent for this Bill. It seems that even when they agree with the UK Government, the UK Government then decide to disagree with themselves.

Claire Hanna: The hon. Lady is correctly outlining the deficits and the broken promises. She may be aware that Northern Ireland has even less legislation on animal rights. The Assembly even rejected an attempt to ban hunting with dogs and we have made no progress on issues such as having a register of banned welfare abusers and banning the online sale of puppies. She speaks about the UK-wide provisions. Does she agree that the House now has an opportunity to bring in progressive and far-reaching legislation that would even pick up the slack in regions such as ours, which are without governance?

Patricia Gibson: Indeed. What I find really distressing is that in Scotland we have come so far on animal welfare, only to find that we are shackled to this dead hand of a Government who refuse to act because they are paralysed by their own internal divisions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Patricia Gibson: I am making some progress.
Meanwhile, Scotland, under the SNP, continues to be a beacon across the UK and Europe on animal rights, with the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021 and the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023. In its Programme for Government, the SNP implemented the majority of recommendations on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 and further measures on preventing trail hunting.

Angela Richardson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Patricia Gibson: No.
The SNP is consulting on proposals to improve animal transport legislation and to phase out cages for game birds and laying hens, and farrowing crates for pigs; it is consulting on legislation to extend the framework for the licensing of activities involving animals to new areas such as performing animals and animal care services; it is considering whether the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should have extra legislative powers to investigate wildlife crime; and it is reviewing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to inform future policy and legislative changes to tackle irresponsible dog ownership. Last year, it became a legal requirement for puppy, kitten and rabbit breeders to be licensed. There is ongoing work with the Animal Welfare Committee to examine issues associated with sheep castration and tail docking. This very week, highland cats are being reintroduced to the wild, and work will be undertaken over the next three years to save the species from extinction. The SNP is also examining the use of acoustic deterrent devices in salmon farming, as well as the issue of e-collars.
I could go on, but I fear that I am showing off now. I am showing the contrast between two Governments, a Government who are ambitious—

Angela Richardson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Patricia Gibson: The answer is no.
One of those Governments is ambitious, progressive and keen, as a mark—as the former DEFRA Secretary said—of how civilised Scotland is on these matters. However, we are shackled to a corpse who will not act and cannot act. I merely point out the dithering of the UK Government when it comes to delivering on their own promises in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. They do not even have the confidence to deliver their own manifesto commitments and the very Bill they brought to the House.
By contrast, only this week, Christine Grahame MSP introduced a Bill to the Scottish Parliament to tackle unlicensed puppy farming, establishing a code of practice for the buying and selling of dogs in Scotland. Meanwhile, in Scotland, we are forced to twiddle our thumbs waiting for this Government to implement their own measures on puppy farming.

Angela Richardson: rose—

Patricia Gibson: People will read little about what I have just said in the media, but the Scottish Government are absolutely committed to the highest animal welfare standards, indeed exceeding EU regulations.

Jane Stevenson: rose—

Patricia Gibson: The UK Government’s work compares very poorly with the excellent work being done in Scotland, but where we in Scotland are reliant on the UK Government, in reserved areas, we are held back. Of course, that extends way beyond animal welfare, but I will not go into that.
I recall the nonsense we were told during the Brexit campaign about how Brexit would allow improved animal welfare standards, even outstripping EU standards, because we would be liberated to move at a faster pace of improvement. But this Government cannot move beyond  that—they cannot even move beyond the width of their own Back Benchers. They are terrified of their own Members.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Lady has made it abundantly plain that she is not giving way. It would be good if we could inject just a few of the normal courtesies into the debate.

Patricia Gibson: I am merely extending the same courtesy that was shown to me by the Minister.
The former Secretary of State for DEFRA, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), was right; everybody in the Chamber knows that he was right. The way we treat animals, in particular farmed animals, is a hallmark of a civilized society. Everyone who is watching can see what dropping this Bill tells us about this Government, and what we can conclude about how civilised they are when we compare and contrast their record on animal welfare with that of the Scottish Government.
The Bill was a significant moment in our progress towards improving animal welfare across the UK, but dropping it is out of step with what we know our constituents want and what we know is right. That is why I would support any motion to have the provisions of the original Bill passed through the House. Dropping the Bill shows that the Government are in retreat. They are out of ideas and have lost any semblance of moral authority. They have a Prime Minister who is afraid to proceed with his own legislation, despite it being in his manifesto, for fear of upsetting some of his notable Back Benchers.
The UK Government are a shrinking, lily-livered, weak-kneed, base, husk of a shell of a Government; they have lost their way and their purpose. Dropping the Bill is symptomatic of that. Animal welfare will pay the price. To tell this House that the Bill has been ditched and that the Government will bring forward individual provisions, covering what was in the Bill, simply does not ring true. Quite frankly, it is a lot of nonsense.
We need to ensure that the important provisions in the original Bill, which the UK Government are too preoccupied and too cowardly to proceed with themselves, are allowed to progress through the House. That is why we in the SNP support the motion.

Roger Gale: Order. I appreciate that this is a sensitive and contentious issue, but we do ourselves no favours and no service by ignoring the conventions and courtesies of the House. I would like to see if we can inject a little more good temper into the tone of the debate.
That said, we have 22 Members still seeking to take part. I will put an immediate five-minute time limit on speeches. If there are a lot of interventions, as there have been in the past, then that will swiftly drop to four or even three minutes. Given the number of Members who wish to take part, I am afraid that is where we find ourselves.

Henry Smith: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in this debate. I do not wish to flout convention, but may I make a personal  tribute to you, Sir, for the work that you have done from these Benches on supporting animal welfare measures? I know that you cannot talk on that matter yourself while you are in the Chair.
I also pay tribute to the Government for their support of my private Member’s Bill, the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which is currently in the other place. I thank, too, the Secretary of State, the Comptroller of His Majesty's Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), and the officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who have helped me with that Bill.
The Government say that the measures in the now halted Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill can be delivered via statutory instruments and private Members’ Bills. If that is so, can I have an assurance from the Government that, should there be wrecking amendments in the other place on the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, Commons time will be afforded to us to ensure that the clearly expressed will of this House to enact that legislation can be met so that the legislation makes it on to the statute book before the end of this parliamentary Session?
I also pay tribute to this Government for achieving a number of animal protection measures. As the Minister told us from the Dispatch Box, they include: a new prison sentence of up to five years for animal cruelty; the Ivory Prohibition (Civil Sanctions) Regulations 2022 and the extension of its provisions; the installation of CCTV in slaughterhouses to ensure greater welfare standards; the micro-chipping of dogs and cats; and the establishment of the Animal Sentience Committee, so that all future Administrations will have to pay the highest regard to animal welfare. That being said, I am disappointed that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill has been withdrawn. It was probably the best vehicle to get all those manifesto commitments made three and a half years ago on to the statute book. However, whatever parliamentary vehicle is used, I want to see those commitments met and completed before the end of this Parliament to ensure that, among other things, the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter is halted. I know that none has taken place since Brexit, but it is important that we make sure that that becomes law. Let me point out that that has only been possible because we have left the European Union. If we were to rejoin, such a measure would not be possible.
Pet theft is another important matter. As has been mentioned, our love and respect for our pets is an aggravating factor when pets are stolen, and that should be recognised in law. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that measures relating to primates and to livestock worrying will also be introduced.
In the limited that I have left I wish to address the important matter of food labelling. We have a sophisticated electorate and they want to know how their food has been produced and the method of slaughter. I know that the Government had committed to a consultation on food labelling. I would be grateful if, in their response, the Minister or the Secretary of State updated us on where we are on that important matter.
It is important that, as a House, we try to park the politics when it comes to animal welfare, because the vast majority of us want to achieve the same thing, and it is only by working together that we will do that for the wellbeing of animals.

Virendra Sharma: I rise from my place to put on record my opposition to yet another broken promise from this Government. It is such a shame that this key legislation for the wellbeing of so many kept animals has been shelved. So many Conservative Members, alongside hon. Friends on the Opposition side of the Chamber, have done so much to secure that legislation, but they have been failed by the Government. Of course the impetus for the Bill originally came from the former Member for Richmond Park; I am sure in his ermine in the other place he is none too happy either. As is the case day after day with this Government, it is wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity.
The Government have been keen to cut trade with Europe, but now inaction offers the puppy smugglers a charter. While renter’s reform offers nothing to support tenants to keep their loved pets, those who want to ship them are emboldened. Puppies continue to be illegally imported into the UK on an industrial scale, alongside increasing numbers of heavily pregnant dogs and dogs with mutilations. The pet travel scheme continues to be abused by smugglers; it is not fit for purpose. Smugglers continue to find loopholes to import dogs and puppies—often underage, unvaccinated and in poor welfare conditions that could have been fixed by the Bill.
But we are not looking at the only broken promise on animal welfare. Fur imports and exports were to be banned too. What happened there? The Government caved in to a small number of extremists in their own party. Ideology also hampers existing animal welfare efforts. While we remained in Europe, we supplied details of trade in live animal exports. Now we no longer even bother to collect the numbers. Inhumane live exports have been curtailed by the shambles of Brexit, but the Bill could end their shame forever.
It is not just in this country that we have abandoned animal welfare by abandoning the Bill. I should note a minor interest here, Mr Deputy Speaker: since joining this House, I have become involved with STAE, Save The Asian Elephants, alongside the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who has been indefatigable in his fight to protect these majestic creatures. He has done a lot on the Government side of the House to raise awareness of the plight these incredible pachyderms face. This is not just a welfare issue; it is existential.
The Asian elephant has been classified as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature since 1986. Their population has declined by more than 50% in the past three generations. Across Asia, these symbols of power and fortitude are at risk of extinction, and British and western tourists are a part of that risk. We must address and stop the commercial exploitation of Asian elephants through unethical tourism fuelled by businesses and their customers from outside India and south-east Asia.
On the Opposition side of the Chamber, we have action, not inaction, with an Opposition motion to bring back the kept animals Bill. I call on Members across the House to back Labour’s motion today and bring back the Bill.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I start by saying what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall  (Mr Sharma), whom I congratulate on his position on saving the Asian elephant? That is a noble cause, if nothing else.
I will focus simply on the problem that we face right now. We have enough collective experience in government to know that large, multi-subject Bills will invariably lend themselves to unnecessary amendments. We knew that before, so my question is: why did we discover it so late that we have ended up having to dump the Bill? That is a gentle criticism of the Government, I know—I bear the scars of trying to do that myself—but we do know that, so we should not have found ourselves in the situation of having to dump the Bill and start all over again. If the Government’s purpose is now to see the issues in that Bill proceeded with on a much tighter schedule, I understand that—although it could have happened earlier—but, if we are to do that, we need answers to some important questions.
First, do the Government have an idea of the timeframe now required for unpacking the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and for single-issue Bills to progress with speed? It would be great if my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would, when they return to the Dispatch Box at the end of the debate, start to put together some idea on that, because I think that would satisfy a lot of people outside this place as well.
Will all parts of the Bill be retained, or only selected elements of it? Will the Government support the pet theft part of the legislation, for example, which is closest to my heart? If not, what amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, in the form of statutory instruments, could be made to change quickly the rules and definitions of “property”. I worked very hard with many colleagues from all sides of the House to get the pet theft stuff through, only to discover during lockdown that that had become a criminal business, and a violent one to boot, in which often quite elderly people were knocked to the ground, beaten up—sometimes very badly—and pets of value were stolen. Not only were those people hurt, but they suffered the loss of what had become a friend.
We treat that too casually if we do not care about it. It mattered to our constituents then and still does today. The idea that the police take less action than they should because they characterise a sentient pet in the same way as they do a stolen bicycle is quite ridiculous. I say simply to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench that many of us are very disappointed that we have not got on with this quicker and earlier. I say that because the situation is now so desperate that this needs to be in statute by the next election, whenever that may be. It simply cannot be that we do not get it there. This should therefore be a priority for the Government.
I do not want to make it party political because, right now, our constituents expect us to work together for their benefit on this matter. We do not have a difference on it, and we should not create one, but what we should have is a Government response to what is quite clearly the emotion of the House in trying to get such legislation through. I urge the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), to answer these questions when she gets up. If there is anybody in government kicking around and saying “Oh, we can’t do this; we mustn’t do it; there are more important  things to do”, will she tell them that the mood of the House is that this is a priority? Let us do it, let us deliver on what we said we would, and let us get it done quickly.

Gill Furniss: I rise in support of today’s motion to revive the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill. I hope that Conservative Members see that this issue stretches beyond party lines and will stand with us to improve the lives of millions of animals.
This year alone, hundreds of constituents have contacted me to call for more stringent animal rights. The Government’s introduction of the kept animals Bill two years ago was welcome. It included a wide range of long overdue measures, ranging from tackling the keeping of primates as pets to cracking down on puppy smuggling and banning live exports. I looked forward to the Bill’s progress and to working cross-party to ensure that it met its aims, but we now see that the Government were simply paying lip service to the millions who support those changes. Two years of delays and three Secretaries of State later, the Bill has been dropped for good, giving the green light to puppy smugglers and those who profit from such abhorrent practices—yet another broken Tory promise.
The 2019 Conservative manifesto was perfectly clear. It said, word for word:
“We will crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies… We will end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening… We will ban keeping primates as pets”.
Like so many other promises, those commitments now lie in tatters.
Ministers now say they will take forward each part of the Bill separately but, after so many broken promises and no clear timetable, how do they expect the public to trust them to deliver? Two years ago, when the Bill was introduced, the Government
“committed to improving our already world-leading standards”,
but that is a far cry from the reality we see today. Under this Government’s watch, Britain’s proud record of being a leader on animal welfare standards is quickly diminishing. We are now falling behind Australia on banning primates as pets, behind the EU on ending the use of cages in farming and behind New Zealand on ending live exports.

Anna Firth: Is the hon. Lady aware that, yesterday, we announced a consultation on banning primates as pets, which will enable us, through secondary legislation, to get that on to the statute book far faster than if we relied on the kept animals Bill? Does she agree?

Gill Furniss: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. We already have a Bill ready to go. It is oven-ready. It reached Second Reading and was ready to go the full distance. Her party chose to put a stop to it.
That U-turn flies in the face of so many experts on the frontline tackling these issues. The Royal Society  for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has warned that the UK is
“facing the prospect of a dramatic downward spiral in animal welfare.”
It makes no bones about it: while this Government dither, animals suffer.
We are a nation of animal lovers. Polling shows that 80% of the public agree that animal welfare should be protected by the Government through legislation. Very few issues garner as much widespread public support as this one. It is therefore all the more baffling that Ministers would choose to turn their backs on all those who wish to see change.
The only people celebrating will be those who benefit from these terrible practices that will now remain legal. It just shows whose side this Government are on: not the millions of us who want to see an end to the abuse and mistreatment of animals, but those who continue to profit from puppy smuggling and other despicable practices.
I know the Minister and have every respect for her; we have worked together on a number of issues over the years and I know of her compassion. I only fear that she has been sent here today to defend the indefensible. I hope Members will send a strong message today that we are committed to ending animal suffering once and for all by voting in favour of the motion.

Craig Mackinlay: I pay credit to the Minister, and indeed to other Members, for outlining the huge number of animal welfare measures we have taken over our period in government, so I am a little disappointed that the Labour party says that we do not care about animal welfare. I give the Labour party credit for what it achieved in its years in government, but Labour is taking us and anyone listening for fools in saying the Conservative party is not interested.
This is an Opposition day debate. It is a day for fun and for Labour Members to do what they usually do, but I will not allow them to take over the Order Paper. We saw too much of that during the Brexit trench warfare times, when Labour tried exactly that. We did have a perfectly good animal welfare Bill, but I take on board what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said: it had become a Christmas tree upon which too many new baubles could be dangled. So we find ourselves where we are.
I was most interested in clause 40 of that Bill, which was very relevant to South Thanet because Ramsgate port—a fairly small port in the scheme of things—had become the only port in the country from which live cross-channel exports were taking place. We had to suffer this foul trade. It became a true stain on our community for far too long. I pay tribute to Kent Action Against Live Exports and particularly an activist there called Yvonne Burchall, who campaigned year in, year out to try to stop the cross-channel live animal export trade.
Matters came to an appalling head at the port on 12 September 2012, when 43 sheep died. Many had to be euthanised; others drowned—a truly awful event. Following that, Thanet District Council, the port owner, unilaterally banned the use of the port for live animal exports, and the public agreed with that; they did not want the port used for that trade. Unfortunately, the council was taken to court by three Dutch companies in 2014. The High Court ruled that the council had acted unlawfully in stopping that use of the port, and £5 million of local taxpayers’ money had to be paid out in compensation.
It was clear that the basis for the Dutch companies’ successful High Court action was single market rules; it was EU membership. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) made the point admirably that single market rules required animals to be treated not as sentient beings, but as mere goods to be traded as you please. It is funny; the Labour party, joined by the SNP, did all it could in the Brexit period to keep us in the single market.
I tried to stop live animal exports by other means. I put forward a private Member’s Bill to amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847—a rather peculiar bit of legislation from the age of sail and steam, which said that any harbour had to be made available to any ship, because of the dangers in those days. That still applied, but I tried to change that so that any port owner could stop a ship, or stop a trade being conducted. It was a back-door route through which I tried to stop this trade. Obviously the Bill was not passed, but it was at least an attempt.
Brexit gave us the opportunity to take control of these matters—to decide what we, our electors, the country and Parliament want to do; and what Parliament wants to do is stop this foul cross-channel trade in live animals. I am very pleased that the trade has stopped since Brexit, but it has done so really for administrative reasons—because the Calais authorities did not want to spend a huge amount of money on new facilities where vets and others checked the animals. It is great news that, administratively, this trade cannot take place, but I say to the Minister that I want it banned legislatively, so that it cannot take place again. That is what my electors want, and it is what dear Yvonne Birchall has been fighting for all these years. I certainly hope that we can bring in the measure in some other way before the election.

Tim Farron: In their manifesto, three and a half years ago, the Government promised a single Bill that would crack down on puppy smuggling, ban live exports, protect sheep and other livestock from dangerous dogs, and ban the keeping of primates as pets—a Bill that I think pretty much everyone in this place would have been in favour of and voted for. The Government seem to have time on their hands; we will probably finish at about 6.30 pm today, and we stopped at 4.30 pm yesterday, so it is no excuse to say that the agenda is packed. Parliamentary time is clearly available, so there is no excuse for the Conservatives having failed to pass the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill that they promised in their manifesto three and half years ago, in the general election of 2019. We are told that all will be well—that the Bill will be broken up into bits and delivered over the next year. We will see.

Layla Moran: Nearly 200 constituents have written to me about the Bill. They want it to happen, and are so worried that it will not. The plan is for the provisions to be put into private Members’ Bills, but given that Members, not the Government, decide what is in private Members’ Bill, and that there is no clear plan for how the measures will be apportioned to Members, I am not filled with confidence that this will get done before the next general election. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Tim Farron: I do not know when the next general election will be; most of us have no more than a bit of a clue about that. My hon. Friend makes a really good point: there is an absence of leadership from the Government. They have declared what they want to do, and most of us agree with it, yet they are delaying the process, for reasons that have been set out, though they all seem pretty weak. The Government are, at best, dragging out a process that should have been completed by now. At worst, this is in effect a betrayal of their promises to the electorate to care for our animals in a practical way. However, even before the Government begin that weakened and watered-down process, there has to be yet another month of consultation—pointless consultation, I would argue. A cynical person would say that that has the benefit to the Government of kicking the issue into the long grass of the summer recess. They might hope that after that recess, people will have stopped caring, but we will not have stopped caring.
All this dither and delay is transparently not because Government Members are all monsters who hate animals—that is clearly not the case. It is because the Government are scared of unhelpful amendments from their own Back Benchers. That is in keeping with what was demonstrated earlier this week by the mass abstentions on Monday night. Rather than challenging bad behaviour or standing up for what is right, we have a Government who habitually bravely run away. As Lord Lamont said in this place of a previous failing Conservative Government, they are a Government who are in office, but clearly not in power. That weakness is not just embarrassing for the Government, but costly: it costs animals the protection they need, or at least delays those protections, and it costs our country the reputation it deserves. As such, I support the Opposition’s motion, as I hope they will support my private Member’s Bill on pet theft and importation, tabled on 6 June. By the way, if the Government wished, they could give that Bill its Second Reading next week. I am not precious: it is all theirs if they want to take it off me.
The Government’s own Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill matters, because how we treat animals and how we allow animals to be treated marks out what kind of people we are and what kind of country we are. We are a nation of animal lovers, not just in theory but in practice, so we cry out for a Government who will act in accordance with those values in practice. Liberal Democrats have a track record of animal rights advocacy, including improving standards of animal welfare in agriculture, ensuring the protection of funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and ending the practice of housing chickens in battery cages while we were in the coalition Government. That matters because, like humans, animals experience suffering, pain and fear, so it is crucial that we change the law to better protect animals from harm.
Of particular interest to our communities in Westmorland and Lonsdale is that the Government’s Bill would have extended the cover of law on livestock worrying to include deer, llamas and other animals, and would also have given police more powers to investigate and prosecute the worrying of sheep and other livestock. NFU Mutual estimates that livestock worrying costs farmers £1 million a year, and the word “worrying” does not conjure up the reality of what that practice actually means and what people in our communities understand that it means. For instance, sheep worrying by dogs means  ewes miscarrying lambs, lambs being separated from their mothers, and horrific incidents of goring causing unspeakable pain and suffering.
Just as the Government’s weakness in this case is sadly characteristic, so is their willingness to put political considerations ahead of animal welfare. It is not that they do not care about animal welfare—they just do not care as much as they care about the politics. The Australia and New Zealand trade deals are a case in point. Those deals were agreed despite farmers and animal welfare charities protesting the fact that they gave an advantage to those who practise lower animal welfare standards over British farmers who practise higher standards. The Government’s desperation for deals at any price for political reasons came at the cost of British farmers and animal welfare. Here we see a pattern: this delay, or this betrayal, is sadly characteristic. That might be hard for Government Members—many of whom, of course, care about animal welfare—to hear, so I challenge and invite them to prove me wrong by backing my private Member’s Bill and supporting today’s motion unamended.

Duncan Baker: I am here not just on behalf of the many constituents who always write to me about animal welfare issues, but because it is a topic that many of us in this Chamber have complete consensus on. I have often said that in this Chamber, there is more that unites us than divides us, and our approach to animal welfare shows exactly that. As we have heard, 69% of UK citizens surveyed by the RSPCA said that they were animal lovers—it is a clear uniting factor. You only have to go for a walk on one of my constituency’s beaches on a Sunday morning to see countless people walking their dogs.
I have always had rescue animals; I grew up with them. I have had rescue dogs, rescue cats and rescue chickens—they do not lay very well, but they are quite nice pets—and every Sunday afternoon, I go through the ritual fight with my children of “Who wants to muck out the rescue guinea pigs?” The point is that I have always been a vocal supporter of protecting our animals. We have to pay a real tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for the enormous amount of work he did during the pandemic on the pet theft taskforce. It was a great problem in North Norfolk, where people were having their beautiful pedigree dogs taken and stolen.
Not many people know this, but I am the glow-worm champion for the UK. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Yes, someone has to do it—and it is a real honour. The need for dark skies is a big issue in many parts of the United Kingdom, and Members probably do not know that glow-worms can be found in Kelling heath in my constituency, which is why I have had that honour. I have run the London marathon a couple of times and raised lots of money for local animal charities, as I am sure a lot of Members here have done. All of us in this Chamber consider animals and pets as having a significant part in our lives.
The Opposition need to recognise a couple of facts. The point has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig  Mackinlay) that, since we have left the EU, we have been able to strengthen our laws on looking after our animals and our pets. We are ranked the highest in the G7 on the animal protection index, with some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Since the action plan for animal welfare was delivered in 2021, the Government have delivered time and again on their animal welfare commitments. We heard the Minister make that point about the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act. We have strengthened the Ivory Act 2018. Cat microchipping has also been strengthened—much to my delight, because when my beloved Clapton went missing, we were able to find him very quickly because of his microchip.
It is not fair for the Opposition to label the Government in the way they have this afternoon. It is very simple to understand that no matter what the Opposition have done to try to spin this, we are keeping the core elements of the Bill. We must set the record straight on that. As many have said, this is not being watered down, and it is not being simplified to push through legislation without proper due diligence. Instead of stretching the current Bill beyond its remit and its snapping, we are, as some Members have said, bringing forward single issues so that they can be properly debated and properly put through our processes. It is right not to overload the original Bill—that is proper decision making. It is proper legislating in this House to build strong, effective Bills that work for the purposes they are designed for.
I actually think the Government should be very proud of what they have done, and the Minister should be very proud of leading on this. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we are not watering the provisions down. We are bringing them forward, and we will deliver on them, as we already have on some of them, before the next general election.

Samantha Dixon: If there is one thing I know, it is that my constituents care passionately about animal welfare. My inbox is full of emails about the importance of this topic to them. The scrapping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and the prevarication on display today are, frankly, astonishing. I am baffled that Conservative Members cannot see how the withdrawal of the Bill makes constituents question whether this Government even care about delivering on their promises. As we have learned this week, trust matters to our constituents, and I know that my constituents care. They care about animal welfare and they care about the Government delivering on their pledges.
The dropping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill also creates huge worries for zoos across the country, including Chester zoo in my constituency, which runs world-leading conservation research and work on animal welfare issues. It is very worried that, without this Bill, the uncertainty surrounding the legislative framework within which zoos operate will be perpetuated. This is causing it real difficulties in allocating the charity’s spending. It is, in effect, in limbo. The Government need to engage with the zoo sector quickly to bring forward the central aims of this important Bill.
Chester zoo is not the only way my area is leading on animal welfare issues. Cheshire West and Chester Council was one of the first to ban permanently the practice of trail hunting on council-owned land, and the National  Trust soon followed suit. The changes introduced by the previous Labour Government have stood the test of time, from the bans on foxhunting and fur farming to the action taken to stop experimentation on great apes and the testing of cosmetics on animals.

Matt Rodda: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I hope that today we can have an element of consensus and that the Government will reconsider their position. It seems strange, when the official Opposition are backing a Government Bill, to not want to progress that Bill for the benefit of animals.

Samantha Dixon: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We must ensure that we do not stop here; we should lead the way on animal welfare. The belief in protecting animal welfare should not come and go depending on what is politically convenient or fashionable at the time—it should be a matter of principle and conviction. There is no need to go round the houses with this issue, introducing what appears to be a parliamentary pick-and-mix approach. We need urgently to go from A to B as simply and as quickly as possible. I will be voting to bring this Bill back, and I encourage Members across the House to do the same.

Andrea Jenkyns: I begin today by paying tribute to the thousands of committed animal welfare campaigners and organisations that have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place for our animal friends. One name that might not be known to people in this House is the late Brian Wheelhouse from my constituency. Brian founded the Whitehall Dog Rescue centre. He was a real earth angel whose life was to be of service to animals, and I was lucky enough to get my rescue dog Suzy from Brian. At Brian’s funeral this week, I asked his family for permission to make these remarks in Brian’s memory.
I am hugely disappointed to be here having this debate today, especially given that the Conservative party has made huge in-roads on improving animal welfare since 2010. In 2019, under the leadership of Boris Johnson—incidentally, he and his wife passionately care about our animal friends—he ensured that all Conservatives stood on a manifesto to bring forward the measures in this Bill. I was immensely disappointed and flabbergasted to hear that the Bill would be dropped, and I immediately set up a petition with a constituent to demonstrate that the British public also want to see the kept animals Bill become law. In just over two weeks, we have collected more than 11,000 signatures, and I thank all the organisations involved with helping to promote the video, too.
I wrote to the Prime Minister this week to highlight the petition and all the organisations that want the Bill brought back. The Bill would have led the world in furthering protections for animals by banning the cruel trade of live exports, protecting zoo animals, tackling puppy smuggling and ending the cruel practice of ear cropping.
One of the specific provisions in the Bill tackles the pet owner’s worst nightmare: pet theft. That happened to me as a child when our family dog Shadow was stolen from our garden. Even today, nearly 40 years later, I wonder what happened to that wonderful, gentle dog. I pray that she found a good home. Like any theft, the emotional consequences leave a lasting mark.
The kept animals Bill also took a stand against puppy smugglers. For the first time, it would have effectively limited the practices of exploitative dog breeders and puppy farms. It is easy to be duped by puppy farms—12 years ago, I bought my wonderful mini schnauzer Godiva from what turned out to be a puppy farm, which thankfully got closed down later. The Bill would have brought in so many different parts of legislation, including Tuk’s law on microchipping, banning primates as pets and banning the import of dogs with docked ears.
We have not got much time left, so I am trying to cut my speech down. The public want us to deliver the legislation. One Member on the Opposition Benches said that about 80% of people across the UK want us to bring in laws to protect animals. I have one question for the Government: do animals matter?
I say to the Opposition that I came to the Chamber today to vote with them. I remember, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), the Brexit times when the Opposition tried to take control of the Order Paper, and we would not have had Brexit had that happened—that was their plan. I think that the Opposition have been too clever by half, and actually they are using animals as political pawns; that is wrong. So, unfortunately, I cannot be in the Lobby with them. Had they kept it simple and tabled a normal Opposition day motion, I would be in the Lobby with them, but I cannot let an unelected Opposition take control of the Order Paper. What else would they do next?

Ashley Dalton: As I rise to talk about this issue, I regret that it has come to the House as an Opposition day debate rather than as part of the Government’s legislative programme. That, of course, is after the Prime Minister pledged his commitment to the kept animals Bill during his ill-fated leadership election last summer. It is not just me who will be meeting this news with disappointment. I am sure that many colleagues on both sides of the House will have had inboxes full of constituents asking where the kept animals Bill is and why the Government have abandoned it and their manifesto pledge to protect animals.
We all know that Britain is a country of animal lovers; it is part of our national identity. When covid struck in 2020 and lockdowns were put in place, many people across the UK felt isolated and in need of companionship. It is no surprise that public demand for pets, and dogs in particular, soared. However, of course, the supply of dogs cannot be increased overnight. There is an obvious timescale for breeding and bringing new puppies to the market, so an opportunity opened up for malicious practices to take place and puppy smugglers to take advantage.
Bad as the exploitive practices of puppy smuggling are, they rarely take place in isolation. I was recently contacted by a constituent who wanted to highlight the problems they are having with their neighbours, who they believe are running puppy smuggling from their home. Vans and cars turn up at the property at all hours, there is noise, there are unpleasant smells, and there has been conflict with other residents in the street, including  a violent assault. It will not surprise anyone to hear that my constituent also reports that a cannabis operation is being run from the same property.
Many up and down the country will find that story familiar. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, alluded to, there is increasing evidence that organised crime gangs are taking an interest in puppy smuggling. Also concerning is how the distribution networks bringing smuggled puppies to the market increasingly mirror how drugs and other illegal and prohibited substances are entering our communities. I am afraid to say that the problems from the puppy smuggling industry do not stop here. Due to the brutal and cruel nature in which puppies are bred and brought to the UK by smugglers, they are at an increased risk of developing severe behavioural issues and bringing parasitic diseases into the UK, putting all of us at risk.
Since the kept animals Bill was last debated in this place, we have had a few personnel changes on the Government Benches, but constantly changing the ringleader of the Conservative party circus is no excuse for breaking the promise that the Government made with the British people. Last month, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), accused Opposition Members of playing political games with the Bill and said that that was why the Government had to withdraw it. But what we have is a Government, elected with an 80-seat majority, who have no confidence to take decisions, running scared of the Opposition.
It is not as though there is not enough parliamentary time for the House to debate the issue. It is clear to anyone looking in that the Government’s legislative agenda is threadbare. How many private Members’ Bills will it take to recreate the legislation that these Houses have already progressed beyond Second Reading—20, 30, or more? I am still relatively new to this place, but even I can see that this is a ludicrous way to do business. The Government might be more interested in fighting among themselves and waiting for the next election, but on the Opposition Benches we want to get on with supporting and delivering for the British people and protecting animals. There is only one party playing political games. When the Conservative party comes to the table, it is always the British people who lose.
For these reasons I am disappointed that the Government have withdrawn the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill from their already sparse legislative agenda. I call on right hon. and hon. Members across the House to support Labour’s motion and bring the Bill to its proper conclusion.

Selaine Saxby: Like others, I am disappointed that we are not progressing with the legislation. As the Parliamentary Private Secretary on the original Bill Committee, I am familiar with it, but to such an extent that I was in agreement with the current Secretary of State’s decision that the only way to deliver the legislation, which is in the manifesto that we stood upon, is to expedite the individual components. I hope we can do that. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the ministerial team for their ongoing engagement and explanation of what has been going on.
It is an interesting day to have chosen for this debate. Earlier today, I attended the first parliamentary Great Get Together, which was hosted by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) in honour of her late sister, who quite rightly said:
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
Having been PPS on the Bill Committee, I know that there is consensus to get these measures through, which is why I am somewhat staggered to find that the Opposition party would stoop so low as to play politics with puppies, because that is what we are looking at. When Government Members go home tonight there will be a social media campaign that says that we have done X, Y and Z to puppies. The reality is that we are delivering the legislation that will enable us to do what we said we would do.
Labour has been in opposition a long time, which is great for this country, but it means that they have no idea how to deliver complex legislation. If the ministerial team decide that it has to be broken down to enable it to get through, I have confidence in this Minister to do that. Like most of us, I would dearly like to stop 10,000 puppies being illegally imported each year and I want the legislation to be speeded up so we can stop it as soon as possible.
I want to take the opportunity to thank the animal welfare organisations I have campaigned with since I got to this House—Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Like all of us, they want to find a way to deliver this legislation smoothly, so that we can unite behind our much loved animals.

Navendu Mishra: Each week my office is inundated with correspondence regarding animal welfare, whether on reviewing the use of cages for laying hens, prohibiting the import of dogs with cropped ears or ensuring proper crackdowns on illegal foxhunting. The last Labour Government stood on a solid record—they banned foxhunting, fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals. Those pieces of legislation have stood the test of time.
This Conservative Government promised that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill would create “the world’s strongest protections” on kept animals and livestock, then they scrapped it. When it was dropped, the Minister stated that he would work closely with the zoo sector to realise the central aims of the Bill. So many in the sector are waiting for progress on that. The Bill would have enhanced the welfare and protection of animals in the UK, and the conservation impact delivered by British zoos. There is now uncertainty around the legislative framework that the zoos operate within. Why was the Government committed to the Bill then and not now?
I recently visited Chester zoo in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon), where I spoke to several people, including those who work on the conservation side. They do some important work. Chester zoo is a leading conservation and education charity. It has a conservation masterplan, with a target to halt or reverse the decline of at least 200 highly threatened populations of plants and animals, as well as a target to improve the landscape for wildlife. It has a conservation mission to prevent extinction. I believe it is the most-visited tourist attraction in the  UK outside London. If you have not been, Mr Deputy Speaker, I encourage you to visit Chester zoo. It is stunning. It has been asking Government Ministers to visit for a long while, but it has not had a visit. I think the zoo is keen to host them, show them around and talk to them. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister is stating that he has been or is in the process of going.

Alex Sobel: I have been and I am going again.

Navendu Mishra: That is comforting to know.
The dropping of the Bill was disappointing for the zoo sector. The uncertainty surrounding it and the updates to the standards has risked the strategic development and spending plans of large charities such as Chester zoo, and they would welcome increased stability in the process. They urge the Government to meet directly with them. Their experts and conservationists can help to put the UK on a legislative path that supports their mission to prevent extinction, and to do so in a timely fashion. I must stress that the zoo sector feels let down by the Government. They must engage in a meaningful manner with the sector.
The Bill would have provided protections against puppy smuggling, puppy farming, pet theft and live animal exports. I am certain that a majority of Members receive a large amount of correspondence on those issues. We will see what happens in the Lobby, but I hope more Government Members vote with us later.
Many of the emails and letters I receive on this topic contain some of the following phrases. I will pick a few:
“As a nation with proud animal welfare standards, we cannot stand by and allow this to continue.”
“I believe that the UK Government should keep its promise”.
“It is extremely disappointing that the Government has taken a huge step backwards on this important issue, and I hope you will take every opportunity to remedy the situation.”
“The commitment to end this cruel trade was in the 2019 Conservative and Labour party manifestos, and the Kept Animals Bill had broad, cross-party support.”
Many of the animal welfare measures in the last Queen’s Speech were lifted directly from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto, but they failed to grasp the full details. The reality is that the Government have a long track record of failure, and scrapping the Bill adds to that long list. It is utterly shameful.

Bill Wiggin: I praise the actions of the Secretary of State and support the Government’s record on animal welfare. The measures they have taken demonstrate a genuine commitment to proper animal welfare. I shall continue to be a critic as and when necessary. However, I believe that the Government have struck the right balance between compassion and practicality on welfare. Although the Government have not presented the Bill, I am reassured that the elements that come through in secondary legislation will deliver.
I am going to do something that all Members could have done. I pledge that if I am successful in the private Members’ Bill ballot, I will bring forward a Bill on sheep worrying. That could have been done by anybody. If I am outwitted, outmanoeuvred or beaten to the ballot by somebody else, then I will do zoo regulation. I do not think any of us should dodge that opportunity if we really care about animal welfare.
We should be proud that the UK has the highest welfare standards in the world. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) is not in his place, but I did his job back in 2005-06. We have delivered on an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to which the Labour Government then conceded, to increase the sentence for cruelty to five years. It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) brought forward his Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 that we saw that sentencing go from six months to five years, which is what it should be. There are lots of other minimum standards that are very welcome.
Opposition Members who talked about hunting and religious slaughter are partly responsible for why a wide, broad-brush Bill will never work on animal welfare. We have to be specific. There are too many extremists out there. If this was about Just Stop Oil, we would hear squeals from Opposition Members, but oh no, this is much too difficult because it really matters.
NFU Mutual estimates that dog attacks on farm animals across the UK cost £1.8 million last year. On 30 May and 1 June this year, West Mercia police reported that as many as 28 sheep had been killed at different farms in Herefordshire because of dog attacks. We must have the toughest possible deterrents, and clear rules for dog owners when they are walking among livestock. Farmers are faced with the horrendous consequences of mauling by dogs: sheep with half their faces missing, lambs left without mothers, and pregnant ewes miscarrying —not to mention dogs being shot.
This is a genuine animal welfare issue. It is not notional or theoretical, like the attempts to limit suffering of animals by banning electric dog collars, which are vital tools enabling owners to train their dogs not to chase sheep by causing a small electric shock. In 2010, the Labour-run Welsh Government outlawed the use of electric collars for training dogs; subsequently, North Wales police recorded that between 2013 and 2017, 648 livestock animals had been killed and 376 had been injured. That led to the shooting of 52 dogs, the highest number reported by any of the five forces.
What is worse is that livestock worrying is getting worse. In Wales, the cost of farm animals that were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2022 was 15.5% higher than the number in the previous year. We can see from what has happened in Wales that the ban on electric collars is not working, and I urge the Government to reconsider the ban before we see many more dogs being shot for worrying livestock. The NFU Mutual figures show that in England, the midlands have been worst affected by dog attacks, with claims totalling an estimated £313,000 in 2022. I therefore urge the Government to continue their progress on delivering proper, considered and effective animal welfare.
People watching this debate who are naive like the Zoological Society of London—for which I used to work—do not understand that if we vote to accept this motion, we will bring in a Bill that is not ready for scrutiny and will create problems in all parts of the House, whereas today we are at least united in our desire for better welfare for animals.

Cat Smith: I should begin by saying that I wish we had not had to have an Opposition day debate on this topic. There are plenty of issues relating to broken Britain that we could have discussed instead. However, I do think it was a constructive move by my party’s Front Bench to try to make progress on an issue on which there is considerable consensus across the House and, indeed, strong feeling among our constituents. One does not have to be an MP for very long to realise that in every constituency in the country a huge number of people volunteer at animal rescue centres and take time to lobby their MPs about important animal welfare issues.
As many others have said, we are undeniably a nation of animal lovers, and it is only right that our laws reflect that. The way in which we treat animals reflects who we are as a nation, and given that assessment, I fear that at present it is not looking very good. The Minister—to whom I have listened many times as she has discussed many different animal issues—says that her Government are seeking to do the right thing by animal welfare, but unfortunately, unless the Bill’s passage is completed, the fact remains that actions would speak far louder than the empty words in her letters to me, which I share with my constituents. A constituent from Galgate wrote to me recently about the delay in the Bill’s progress, saying:
“This move goes against all notions of humane reaction with our fellow-creatures and is a backwards step into the dark ages”.
I ask Conservative Members to reflect on how this looks to so many of our constituents who rightly care about the way we treat animals.
Perhaps optimistically, I decided to look through the case files that I have prepared on animal welfare issues over just the last couple of years. I had hoped to find an animal for every letter of the alphabet, and to be able to explain to the House how many animals people feel passionate about, but I am afraid I got no further than “B”, because so many different issues were involved. Whether it is badgers and the badger cull, bears and the use of bearskins on the caps of the King’s Guard, or bees and the pesticides we should be banning to protect nature—and that is just the letter B. I could have gone on and done the entire alphabet, but I am conscious of time and I know that that would not have been possible today.
I want to say a few things about animal welfare issues and particularly about hunting, because many of my constituents are concerned by the Government’s failure to close the loopholes in the Hunting Act 2004. There is clear evidence of fox hunting continuing across the UK, often with devastating consequences. That is not new information; it is has been on the Government’s radar and has been confirmed by senior police officers for years, but the Government still refuse to act. There is huge public support for taking action, and I am confident that that would have support in the House too. Polling shows that 78% of British people want the Hunting Act strengthened.
I want to mention a constituent who has picked up another animal welfare issue—the cost of living. The cost of living crisis affects our pets as well as those in our household, and my constituent is trying to set up a pet food bank in response to the current need. That is a wonderful idea but, as with food banks for humans, it should not be necessary.
Recent polling showed that three quarters of the public would like the Government to progress more laws on animal welfare. In many ways, the Minister is delivering far more pieces of legislation in order to get the Bill through, but that will take longer. How many individual private Members’ Bills does she expect it will take to get the Bill into legislation? How optimistic is she about doing that in the timeframe before the next scheduled general election?
I want to say a few words about how widely felt this issue is in my constituency. Last Friday, I visited the primary school in Winmarleigh—a very small village just north of Garstang and south of Lancaster that many Members have probably never heard of—and the children repeatedly asked me about animal welfare and cruelty to animals, but it is the same when I am out knocking on doors on the Ridge estate in Lancaster. Whether it is the rural parts of my constituency or the urban parts, and whether it is my youngest constituents or my oldest, all my constituents feel incredibly strongly about this issue. Ignoring it ignores our moral obligations and human responsibilities to animals, so I hope the Government will reconsider the Bill and bring it forward as speedily as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. Looking at the time, and given that we really do need to start the winding-up speeches at 6 o’clock, I am reducing the time limit to three minutes. I call Peter Gibson.

Peter Gibson: I am incredibly proud of our record on animal welfare. We are a nation of animal lovers, and that is not merely the preserve of the Conservative side of the House. Since I was elected, I have had over 1,100 letters from constituents on a range of animal welfare issues. The UK is the highest ranked G7 nation on the animal protection index and the joint leader globally.
Animal welfare has been a priority for this Government since 2010, so let us look at the record. We recognised animal sentience in law. We increased maximum sentences for animal cruelty. We launched the consultation on fixed penalty notice powers. We introduced new protections for service animals with Finn’s law. We launched the animal health and welfare pathway, with new annual vet visits and grants. We implemented the revised welfare at slaughter regime, including CCTV in slaughterhouses. We raised standards for chickens. We revamped local authority licensing regimes. We banned third-party puppy and kitten sales with Lucy’s law. We made microchipping compulsory for cats and dogs. We introduced offences for horse fly-grazing and abandonment. We introduced new community order powers to address dog issues. We banned wild animals in travelling circuses. We passed the Ivory Act 2018. We gave police additional powers to tackle hare coursing. We banned glue traps.
I have supported the private Member’s Bills currently before Parliament that ban the import of hunting trophies and the trade in detached shark fins.
I am also delighted to have supported the ten-minute rule Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). Known as Emily’s law, the Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill would criminalise fatal dog-on-dog attacks in the UK, ensuring  irresponsible dog owners are held to account. Darlington recently saw a horrific dog-on-dog attack when Sasha, a mixed-breed terrier, was attacked by a German shepherd. The Bill is important in addressing that issue.
It is simply laughable for the Opposition to claim that Conservative Members do not care about animal welfare. Our record speaks for itself. If Labour cared so much about this issue, why were a Conservative Government needed to bring forward legislation after Labour had been in power for 13 years?
Labour’s motion, which attempts to take control of the Order Paper, is yet another cynical attempt to generate clips and videos to pump out on social media as propaganda targeted at constituencies it lost in 2019. The voters of places such as Darlington will ask, “Why now?” The Labour party moves with the wind, but on this side of the House we stand by our commitments. I have every faith that our fantastic DEFRA Ministers will deliver on our promises.

Sarah Champion: My inbox is full of angry constituents who feel profoundly let down because the Government dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which could have addressed things such as puppy smuggling, live exports and pet theft, about which we all care deeply.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for zoos and aquariums and will focus on the Bill’s zoo licensing measures. On Second Reading, colleagues across party lines were clear that the Bill was the right thing to do. Indeed, the zoo sector fully supported the Bill. It disappoints me that the Minister has not yet detailed how these individual Bills will come forward. If she could speak about the timetable, it would give much reassurance.
Good zoos and aquariums have, for many years, been committed to raising standards of animal welfare and boosting their conservation work. They have been leading on this and we should be proud that, through the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums, our zoos and safari parks adhere to world-leading welfare standards. They are also leading the world in their conservation and research.
I urge the Minister to visit ZSL Whipsnade to see creatures that are extinct in the wild. Entire species now rely on the zoo to survive and recolonise in the wild. Or she could go to Scotland, where she will see that Scottish wildcats bred at Highland Wildlife Park have returned to the Cairngorms. Or Plymouth, where she will see the National Marine Aquarium restoring sea grasses to our seas.
In 2022, BIAZA zoos and aquariums undertook 836 conservation projects around the world and spent £28 million on conservation. They supported 90 native species projects and worked on 1,339 research projects. Conservation is the backbone of all good zoos.
The Bill set out the most significant changes to zoo licensing since the 1980s, and the measures would have strengthened the conservation, education and research of all zoos and aquariums. It would have made zoo licensing easier to enforce, and therefore guaranteed the high standards in animal welfare that good zoos and aquariums are proud to uphold, and it would have replicated them across the sector. Zoos and aquariums tell me they are unclear what happens next, so will the  Minister please contact the society, speak to the zoos themselves and make sure this much-needed legislation goes through, in whatever form? We would appreciate that commitment today.

Theresa Villiers: I was pleased when I heard the Opposition had put this subject on the agenda and this morning I was even thinking that I would perhaps be joining them in the Lobby. That was until I read their motion, which is obviously a deeply cynical ploy. I do not think anyone on the Government side of the House should be party to it. Playing politics with the welfare of animals is completely unacceptable.
No one in this House cares more about the issue of live exports than I do and I am determined that the Government will deliver on that manifesto commitment. We have had the clearest of assurances from the Government on that. Today, I reiterate my call: we need those single-issue Bills to come forward to this House as soon as possible. I know that is a message the Minister here will have heard. I hope we hear that across government and we can get that legislation to this House, so we can vote for it, get it through and get a ban on the statute book.
I will continue to raise that issue with Ministers at every opportunity because the live export of animals for slaughter is cruel. It causes distress, suffering and injuries and it is time it was brought to an end. In this country, the live export of animals for slaughter has been a concern for about 100 years. Many of us will remember the protests of the 1990s, but successive UK Governments were powerless to do anything about it because of single market rules. Now we are free of those rules, the time has come to end this cruel trade. If animals are reared in this country, we need to take responsibility for the circumstances in which they are slaughtered. That must mean ensuring that they are slaughtered at the closest point to where they are reared which is practical and viable.
I also want to see a single-issue Bill brought forward to crack down on illegal imports of puppies, about which so many of my colleagues have spoken today. That is another cruel trade and we need to crack down on it—again, this is a benefit of our departure from the single market and the EU. I pay tribute to the work of the Dogs Trust in highlighting that issue. I want the rules to be changed. I want visual checks to be a routine part of the process of checking on imports of dogs. I want that legislation to come forward as quickly as possible. So I appeal to the Government to bring forward the legislation. When it is here, we should table no amendments. We should get on, back these Bills and put them on the statute book.

Steven Bonnar: I rise to speak in favour of the Opposition motion and will happily vote for it when the House divides later. As has been well-established, the Scottish Government have been leading the UK in these areas of animal welfare rights and livestock movement regulations for a considerable time. We have heard today that the Bill largely related to England and Wales only, but  part 3 did extend to Scotland, as did clauses 42 to 53 and schedule 5. The Scottish Government granted their consent motions to the proposals in the Bill that related to areas of legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
It has been two years since the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was introduced. The SNP supported its introduction, as well as any carry-over motion, but here we are, three Ministers deep and no further forward on many of its aims. We are no further forward on banning foie gras and animal fur imports, or on tackling illegal puppy and kitten smuggling in or indeed around the nations of the UK. The SNP notes, as do my constituents, who write to me in their hundreds on animal rights matters, the abysmal failure of the UK Government to prioritise animal rights and welfare abuse mitigations.
The Scottish Government commit to the highest animal welfare standards, so we have real concerns that a Brexit Britain backslide has begun and we are in real danger of not meeting the adequate regulatory protections for both domestic and wild animals that we all know to be required. That backslide would be in stark contrast to the work being undertaken in Holyrood by the SNP, as we deliver the Scottish Government’s Programme for Government. That programme has introduced and passed the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, and strengthens the law on the use of dogs to hunt and flush foxes and other wild animals. We will also, through an independent taskforce, consider whether the SSPCA should be given extra powers to investigate wildlife crime. The Scottish Government will also review the Dangerous Dogs Act to inform future policy and legislative changes to tackle irresponsible dog ownership.
It is somewhat ironic that, when there is agreement across the nations of the UK on matters such as this, when all this collaborative work is taking place by both Governments, and when this Bill enjoys cross-party support in this House, the UK Government have just decided to pull the plug on it. As things stand, and while we wait, the smugglers find new ways to avoid detection and illegally import heavily pregnant dogs and puppies, as well as those that have suffered mutilation such as ear cropping—we have heard so much about that today. So along with organisations such as the SSPCA Lanarkshire animal rescue and rehoming centre, which serves my constituency, the Dogs Trust and Compassion in World Farming, I simply say to the Government: get on with it and get the Bill back in front of the House.

Louie French: Since being elected to this place, strengthening animal welfare protections has been a priority of mine and an issue close to my heart, not only because I am an animal lover but because my constituents of Old Bexley and Sidcup are also hugely passionate about animal welfare.
I made my maiden speech on the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, in which I championed the strengthening of animal welfare in law, and I am proud of what the Government have since achieved on animal welfare, which is more than any other party. I am also proud to work with a range of excellent animal welfare charities and organisations.
On pets, we have made microchipping mandatory for dogs and cats, which will help to reunite lost pets with their owners. We have protected service animals via  Finn’s law and banned third-party sales of puppies and kittens via Lucy’s law, as well as introducing tougher sentences for animal cruelty.
On wild animals, we banned the use of wild animals in circuses, introduced one of the toughest bans on elephant ivory sales in the world and announced, only last month, that we would extend that law to cover five endangered species, including hippos, whales and walruses.
But we can, and must, go further. I welcome the Government’s commitment to bring forward measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill individually during the remainder of this Parliament. I particularly welcome that the Government remain committed to cracking down on puppy smuggling and banning the import of young, heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs, such as those with cropped ears or docked tails.
In 2015, the Dogs Trust, which does excellent work, set up the puppy pilot, which cares for illegally imported puppies seized at the border. The scheme has since cared for 2,256 puppies that, if sold, would have had a market value of over £3 million, highlighting the current financial incentives for smugglers. The trust found that as many as 75 dogs had had their ears cropped. The trade is horrific and puts money in the pockets of the illegal importers. I welcome that the Government are firmly committed to cracking down on that quicker than would have been possible. I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to do so as soon as possible.
Given the Government have already explained that these vital animal welfare protections will be delivered quicker as single issue Bills, it is difficult to understand why Labour has tabled the motion. It is nothing more than another cynical political game. For a party that claims to be a Government in waiting, where are Labour’s own policies? Does the Labour party have any, or is it scared that whatever it announces today will be changed within weeks, like nearly all its other pledges? Where are the Labour Members? This is an Opposition day, but the Opposition Benches are empty. Instead of playing political games, I will instead continue to press and support the Government in championing animal welfare and providing a voice for those that do not have one.

Alex Davies-Jones: I am very pleased to speak in such a vital debate, as animal welfare is of immense importance to my constituents in Pontypridd and Taff-Ely. In fact, it is regularly the No. 1 issue in my post bag each month.
I am proud to represent a community of such fierce defenders of animal rights, but they are not just in my area of south Wales—research published earlier this year showed that the Welsh care more about animal welfare than any other UK nation. So I stand here today as a proud Welsh MP, who is both proud to represent my constituents, who believe tirelessly in animal justice, and proud to represent Welsh Labour, which has worked so hard to improve the lives of animals in Wales.
Of course, there are many charities I would like to mention. I recently had the privilege of visiting Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Chester Zoo and Hope Rescue, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), to hear more about the fantastic work they do. With that in mind, I want to take the opportunity to hold this Tory Government to account on their track record.
Far too many vital Bills that could have made a real, tangible difference on this issue have been abandoned by this reckless, careless Tory Government: the Animals Abroad Bill—dropped; the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—abandoned. It is no surprise that we are here to discuss the Government’s failure to keep its promises.
As for the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, as much as I welcome the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), the fact that he has effectively legislated Government policy on behalf of the Government somewhat begs the question, what the hell is the point of them? I need not remind the Members on the Government Benches that they were elected on a manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies. Relying on their own Back Benchers to ensure the Government keep to their promises is absurd; it shows they cannot be trusted to keep their own promises, which really is a terrible look.
The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was meant to be a groundbreaking opportunity to enact world-class animal welfare legislation by clamping down on keeping primates as domestic pets, banning the import of dogs with cropped ears, banning the export of traumatised live animals for slaughter or fattening, and finally, once and for all, providing for pet theft to be a specific offence. All are enormously important policies with extremely wide support across the House and among the public. All are key components of the Government’s cornerstone action plan for animal welfare from 2021. All are now abandoned—yet another devastating broken promise from this tired and weak Tory Government.
Although animal welfare is devolved, importation and exportation remain a Westminster matter. In Wales, the Senedd stood ready to consent to and vote for the Bill also applying to Wales. When it was announced just last month that the Bill was to be scrapped and that the Government intended to proceed with elements of the original Bill just split up in component parts, we had no clear timelines and there was no clear interest in allocating parliamentary time for this before the summer recess. The vital policies look set to be kicked into the long grass.
While Tory Ministers are beholden to the hunting lobby and they dither and delay, thousands of animals are suffering in misery, or will die in horrific conditions. We have been waiting for this Bill for years. This is just not good enough. It is clear that the Tories have lost interest in legislating for animal welfare. In fact, they have lost interest in legislating for anything at all. I am pleased to say that, in contrast, Labour could not be stronger. We on this side of the House stand ready to legislate. We stand ready for Government. That is what this country needs and that is what our animal welfare laws need. We need a Labour Government.

Anna Firth: Animal welfare is incredibly important to everybody in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea. Building on the incredible legacy of Sir David, the animal champion in this place, I have already been vocal on the issue of animal welfare. I have introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, known as Emilie’s law, to try to do something about the growing and horrendous incidents of dog-on-dog attacks. Emilie’s law, the Animal Welfare (Responsibility for Dog Attacks) Bill, seeks to address a key gap in the law. As things  currently stand, a dog owner is not liable for any form of criminal prosecution when their dog fatally attacks another dog. I very much hope that the Government can find a mechanism for correcting this loophole in the law. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for his support, and I was shocked to hear the horrendous story in his own constituency.
I am also a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. I am incredibly proud of this Government’s record on animal welfare. I have been shocked to hear what Labour Members have been saying this afternoon. On farms, we have introduced new regulations for minimum standards for meat chickens. We have made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England. For pets, microchipping became mandatory for dogs in 2015. We have protected service animals via Finn’s law. We have banned the commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens through Lucy’s law. In 2019, our Wild Animals in Circuses Act became law, and we have led work to implement humane trapping standards. We have also introduced the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, extending animal cruelty sentences from six months to five years’ imprisonment, thanks to all the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who cannot speak in this debate. We also published an ambitious and comprehensive action plan for animal welfare in May 2021, which relates not just to farm animals, but to wild animals, pets and sporting animals. It has both domestic and international ambition.
Rather than backing those improvements, Labour Members are playing political games. Yet when we look at the devolved Welsh Administration, we can see that their record on animal welfare is shambolic. Let me give just one example. This year, we legislated to make cat microchipping compulsory to help reunite more lost cats with their owners. We are the only nation in the UK to have done so. The Labour-led Welsh Government have not announced any plans to follow our lead.
In conclusion, I shall be standing with this Government, and I look forward to helping them maintain their strong record on animal welfare. They have my full support and the support of all my constituents in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea.

Ben Lake: I wish to concentrate my remarks in the brief time that I have on the very worrying issue of dog attacks on livestock. In that regard, I commend the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin) for his remarks. He was right to point out how serious this matter is for rural communities. I also applaud his commitment to introduce a Bill if he is successful in the private Member’s ballot. That is an important commitment to make and one that I have also made. I just hope he has greater luck in the ballot than I have had, because that is legislation that needs to be brought forward.
I will not pretend that I am not disappointed that the kept animals Bill has fallen, because the measures included in it to address livestock worrying now face great uncertainty. It is a tragedy of the situation that we now  must depend on the luck of the draw of the private Member’s ballot to see whether those measures get on to the statute book.
As anybody who represents a rural constituency will know, one of the most horrific experiences that anyone can witness in life is the aftermath of a dog attack on livestock—primarily sheep, but also other livestock. In the last few weeks alone, I have spoken to three different farming families in Ceredigion who have suffered attacks on their livestock by dogs. Together they have lost about 40 sheep completely, with a further dozen or so on life support, as it were. The photographs are gruesome. We cannot underestimate how traumatic it must be for the animals to suffer such gruesome attacks and to die in such a horrible way.
We need to make sure that the measures that were included in the Bill to address the deficiencies of the current legislation, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act of 1953, are brought forward in haste, because that Act is not fit for purpose as it stands. Police desperately require greater investigatory powers in order to bring more instances of dog attacks to prosecution and to serve as a deterrent to other dog owners, so that they make sure that they keep their animals under control.
I am not going to pretend that the measures included in the Bill were perfect. I would have liked it to have gone further; I was on the Bill Committee and I argued that we should make it a necessity for dogs to be kept on leads when livestock are nearby. However, the Bill was better than nothing. That is why I hope, for the sake of those farming families and the sheep and other livestock in my constituency, that the relevant measures will be brought forward in haste.
Before I sit down, I plead with the Minister, when she addresses the debate, to explain whether there will be another consultation on that measure. Do we need to go through that whole process again, or is it something that can quickly come onto the statute book by means of a private Member’s Bill? I know for certain that there will be MPs across the House from rural constituencies who will be keen to work together to get it into law.

Robbie Moore: As Members from across the House have said, we are a nation of animal lovers, and animal welfare has been a priority for this Conservative Administration and previous Conservative Governments going back to 2010. It is important to outline the success stories that the Conservative Government have delivered. We passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which enshrined into law sentient beings. Last month, we launched the new Animal Sentience Committee, which will advise this Government.
We introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty by passing the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increases the maximum custodial sentence from six months to five years. As others have done, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) on that; he cannot speak in the debate because of his role within the Department, but we must congratulate him on his efforts in bringing forward that Bill. This year we legislated to make cat microchipping compulsory, which will help to unite lost pets with their owners. Last month we announced that we had extended the Ivory Act to cover five more endangered species: hippopotamuses, narwhals, killer whales, sperm whales and walruses.
We implemented a revised welfare at slaughter regime to introduce CCTV in all slaughterhouses. We banned traditional battery cages for laying hens and permitted beak trimming only via infrared technology. We have also banned third-party puppy and kitten sales through Lucy’s law, the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. I could go on—[Interruption.] And I will! We introduced offences for horse fly-grazing and abandonment, a key point that I am pleased the Government have addressed. We introduced new community order powers to address many dog-related issues and banned wild animals in travelling circuses. Again, I could go on: we also banned glue traps and gave police additional powers to tackle hare coursing.
This Government have committed from the Dispatch Box that they are determined to bring forward the provisions within the kept animals Bill through individual pieces of legislation—more nimble pieces, which can work through both Houses at speed. That commitment has been given.
It is therefore incredibly disappointing that the Opposition have decided to use this debate simply to politicise animal welfare. They have even sent out a joint letter signed by both shadow Ministers, not to us as individual MPs, but to the Conservative party headquarters. It is signed by all Labour parliamentary candidates—although, looking through the list, the Labour candidate going up against me in Keighley has not even bothered to sign it. I do not quite know what that says about his commitment to the Labour party or indeed to animal welfare. However, we need to raise our game on this issue, not politicise it. I am pleased that this Government have brought forward the measures they have, and I am pleased with the commitments they have made at the Dispatch Box today.

Andrew Western: I begin by drawing the House’s attention to the impact on animal welfare that the dither and delay on this issue has caused. In the two years since the kept animals Bill was first introduced, the Dogs Trust has cared for 485 puppies that have been smuggled into the country, often in desperate conditions. It has also looked after 101 dogs who were transported while heavily pregnant, which we know poses significant risks to their health. Scrapping the Bill has given a green light for that cruelty to continue.
The Government used to claim that the Bill, first promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto, would bring in some of the world’s strongest protections for pets, livestock and kept animals. Its provisions included ending live animal exports for fattening and slaughter, tackling puppy smuggling and restricting the keeping of primates as pets. I can see that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to correct the record on that point, and I am happy to say that the Government committed to introducing in legislation the individual facets in that Bill. It is my understanding, however, that private Members’ Bills are a lottery and are introduced by individual Members, so I still suggest that that is a broken promise. Of course, the challenge with the reliance on private Members’ Bills is that they are not just a lottery but a minefield.
We need to hear significant assurances from the Minister on the timings, on what will and will not be brought forward, on what elements of the Bill she considers her priorities, and on why she considers the other elements of the Bill less of a priority so that they will be phased behind those. We had a Bill that had already passed its Second Reading and was ready to go. We are told, “People tried to broaden it, so it became a Christmas tree Bill,” but, for heaven’s sake, the Government have a significant majority and a mandate to deliver on this matter—those excuses simply do not wash. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I will support the Labour motion. We need to see the kept animals Bill in statute, in full, as soon as possible.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Sobel: It is a shame that Conservative Members continue to peddle the fake narrative that they have been told to push by DEFRA Ministers and the Whips—that my party is playing political games. The motion, if they have read it, clearly demonstrates the opposite. It is about bringing back the Government’s own legislation without amendment or embellishment. Let us remember that the Bill has been through Committee—through scrutiny—and passed Second Reading, and is the Government’s own legislation.
This is about just doing the right thing for our nation’s animal welfare. The country can judge for itself which is the true party of animal welfare, but I think we have all heard enough speeches from the Labour Benches to know. Although the Government and their compliant Back Benchers do their best to dance around the issues and deflect responsibility, we know the real reason they withdrew this Bill: leaked internal documents clearly show that they scrapped the kept animals Bill just to avoid “unnecessary tensions and campaigns” in their own party and on their own Benches. I think that we have seen that played out again today.
The truth is that the Tories are far more concerned with their own internal politics than the welfare of animals, and they have shown contempt for the electorate and a staggering inability to govern as a result. The kept animals Bill is not the first animal welfare legislation that this Tory Government have mishandled. As others have mentioned, they also bungled their “world-leading” Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, which has not come to pass—yet another casualty of a fractured party mired by infighting.

Robbie Moore: Will the shadow Minister give way?

Alex Sobel: I give way to my constituency neighbour.

Robbie Moore: The shadow Minister is making an excellent preprepared speech. I note that he and his fellow Opposition Members are agreeing to the aspirations of this Conservative Government, but what I have not heard throughout this Opposition day debate is one new policy idea from Labour; is he able to expand on any ideas they might bring forward?

Alex Sobel: The hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, is making the case for why he should vote for this motion: we are not bringing forward Labour policy; we are bringing forward Conservative policy—we are  bringing forward a Conservative Bill that was meant to be delivered by a Conservative Government. Conservative Members are going to vote against their own policies. There have been lots of speeches today about our having consensus in this place on animal welfare issues, and we are proving that. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members will vote against the Labour motion, thereby disproving that that is the case in reality, rather than just in theory.
How many animals must have suffered from the delay we have had and the Conservatives’ abject political failure? By not legislating for the provisions of their own Bill and waiting two years to admit finally on 25 May —a month ago—that they were abandoning it, they have created an unknown number of animal victims. How many animals have suffered because of this political choice?
Conservative Members can continue to argue that the thin gruel of the Government’s legislation on animal welfare is a success, yet they still have not managed to ban fur and foie gras, as they promised the public in their manifesto four years ago and which has cross-party support. Just like that other flagship piece of animal welfare legislation, the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, this good piece of legislation has been cast aside—consigned to the scrapheap. I think we can all agree it shows how low animal welfare really is on the Government’s list of priorities.
The kept animals Bill was a solid piece of legislation, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). It covered a wide range of issues; although it is not the most newsworthy legislation, it is vitally important. The Conservatives promised to bring in some of the world’s highest and strongest protections for pets, livestock and kept wild animals.
In the Labour party, animal welfare is not a debate; it is a priority. I praise a number of colleagues who made important contributions to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) made excellent points about pet smuggling and is right that the pet passport scheme has loopholes and that this Bill would fix them. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) was rightly horrified by the keeping of primates as pets, and this Bill is the solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—the esteemed chair of the all-party group on zoos and aquariums, which does great work in representing a global success story for the UK in conservation—rightly pointed out that the Bill would update the now woefully out of date zoo licensing standards. Since the Bill was dropped by the Government, there is no Government plan—if there is, I would like to hear it—on zoo licensing, which has been left in the wilderness.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) astutely pointed out that puppy smuggling is part of organised crime. The Government clearly do not take animal crime seriously either. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) has a world-leading zoo in her constituency; a number of other Members from the north-west also praised her zoo, and I will be visiting it shortly and am sure I will see her there. She rightly pointed out that licensing issues continue to plague zoos across the country. She  also pointed out the trailblazing work by her council on trail hunting, which others have since adopted. The hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) also made excellent points about zoo licensing, and it is great that there is so much support for that. He also made powerful points for his constituents that the Government should keep their manifesto promises; he cited a couple of powerful examples from his constituency casework.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) highlighted the high number of issues just beginning with the letter b, and I was pleased to hear about the bees, badgers and other b animals. She talked about the cost of living crisis affecting pets, too, and the need for pet food banks. There are many other issues with our beloved pets that the Government need to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) reminded us of the animals abroad Bill that the Government are dropping as well, and made the wider point that a Government legislating by private Members’ Bills is not a Government leading but a Government following their Back Benchers.

Peter Gibson: I had the privilege of having my number drawn in the private Members’ Bills ballot a number of years ago, and I brought forward a Bill, though not about animals. I can attest to the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), who was Under-Secretary of State for Transport at the time, directed that Department to give me every help along the way. If the Government support a private Member’s Bill, they absolutely lend their support to the individuals taking them forward.

Alex Sobel: That is a different point, on which I agree—I have been on Bill Committees with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison)—but my point is that using private Members’ Bills to get the measures in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill through this place is not the same as the Government legislating. It is merely piecemeal legislation. There are no guarantees that every measure in the Bill will get through the House by the end of the parliamentary Session, before the next general election. The most likely outcome is that hardly any will, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), the shadow Secretary of State, but the proof will be in the pudding; at the general election, we will all see.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western) is right, again, about the dither and delay. He made a number of good points, including the point that the Bill has been so long in gestation that it predates his entry to the House. A number of Members who have spoken have not been here as long as the Bill. That is why, in the motion, we propose resurrecting the Bill, and have set a date—12 July, which is soon—on which to get it moving through the legislative process. It is really quite simple: we politicians need to do our job, and do the right thing. In this case, that is to end the unnecessary suffering of innocent animals. We call on Government Members across the aisle to join us in the Lobby and give this place time to consider the Bill—a Bill that was brought to us by the Government. Let us work together to do the right thing,  and put animal welfare before party politics. I heard Government Members say that they supported the Bill; they voted for it, and even served on the Bill Committee. Why can they not join us in voting for the motion today, and give the Bill time to get through this place?

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the Secretary of State, I emphasise once again how important it is for all Members who spoke to get back to the Chamber in time to hear the Opposition spokesperson, as well as the Minister. It is very discourteous not to be here for those speeches. It is incumbent on Members to follow the debate, and not spend a lot of time away from it, so that they know when the wind-ups start.

Therese Coffey: I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who spoke in the debate. I remember my first weekend as a Member of Parliament; within just a few days, I had received more emails asking me to sign an early-day motion about hens’ beaks than on anything else. That was a clear sign, if we did not know it already, of how passionately people feel about animal welfare. I am sad that today’s debate, in which the Opposition are trying to take control of the Order Paper, has tried to weaponise animal welfare, rather than promote it.
Clearly, there is strong support right across the House for the Government’s ambitions on animal welfare. I assure the House that this Conservative Government, and Conservative MPs, are fully committed to delivering our manifesto commitments. Some hon. Members have suggested that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was in our manifesto. That is not the case; let me get that clear. I appreciate that Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs do not spend their time reading Conservative manifestos. The commitments are there, however, and those are what we intend to deliver.
As for those who have derided the use of private Members’ Bills, I point out that some of the most significant legislation on animal welfare has come in through such Bills—and let us be clear: no private Member’s Bill gets through Parliament without the full support of the Government. Often, that support includes the provision of advice, and officials from the Department writing the legislation. I am delighted that we have really competent officials doing that, who have helped much legislation get through.

Ashley Dalton: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Therese Coffey: No.
I have heard a few things today about how manifestos need to be honoured. That is what we intend to do. It is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries came before the House less than a month ago to set out how that was going to be the case. I think the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), talked about not U-turning. He should perhaps give that advice to the leader of the Labour party, who has U-turned on pretty much every pledge he made to win the Labour leadership.
At some point, I think there was some clarity that the intention of the shadow Secretary of State was to propose the Bill as presented to Parliament and at the stage it had reached. Indeed, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), has just said that it was a good piece of legislation. Last December, a different shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones)—said to the House that Labour wanted to amend the Bill to make it more fit for purpose. When they were invited by one of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), not to push some of their amendments which were not necessary, Labour absolutely refused to do so. That is why, I am sorry to say, there is a lack of trust in what has been tabled by the Opposition.
It is important for all politicians to be honest about what we have done already on animal welfare, and what we intend to do. That is why I am highly concerned by the publicity stunt—another misleading publicity stunt—created by the Opposition today. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton stated that if the Government voted against the motion, which is simply about giving control of the Order Paper to the Opposition, we would be voting to continue puppy smuggling, puppy farming, pet theft and live animal exports. That is simply not true. I would go so far as to say that it is a falsehood, and it is those sorts of statements that bring this place into disrepute. That approach is now a regular feature of shadow Ministers’ speeches.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Minister set out our approach in an oral statement less than a month ago, building on our track record, so that we have the highest animal welfare standards in the world. I fully recognise that previous Labour Governments have helped us make that good progress. That is why I welcome the Opposition’s new-found enthusiasm for what we on the Government Benches are trying to do and have spent the past more than a decade delivering, and the manifesto commitments we have made. I have said that we will crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, and we will, but I should point out to the House that that smuggling is already illegal. We pledged that we would end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening, and that is what we will do.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton claimed that we are letting live animal exports continue. There has not been a single animal exported from this country for fattening and slaughter since we left the EU, and we will make sure that that does not happen through the necessary legislation, but let us be clear to the House and the people listening to this debate: we can only take forward that measure because we left the European Union, something that Labour and other Opposition parties tried to block. There are other aspects of the law that we are changing; if we were still in the European Union, we would not be able to change them. We are changing retained European law.
We said that we would ban keeping primates as pets. For people who have not seen our written ministerial statements today, we have already published our consultation—which is a necessity—prior to laying secondary legislation. I fully expect that secondary legislation to pass through the House before the end of the year. Making that reality happen will enable us to bring in the necessary legislation more quickly than if we had relied on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals)  Bill. Of course, we also promised measures on animal cruelty, ivory, microchipping and animal sentience, which we have delivered.
The House may also recall the comprehensive action plan for animal welfare two years ago, which covered a total of 40 areas relating to farm animals, companion animals, sporting animals and wild animals, included both legislative and non-legislative reforms, and covered both domestic and international action. We have been delivering on our promises. We have increased penalties for animal cruelty: new, higher prison sentences are already being used in our courts. We recognised in law that animals are sentient beings, which my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) pointed out as being absolutely vital when he discussed his experience as a vet. Across Government, all policy decisions need to take that recognition into account.
We have already made cat microchipping compulsory. That was in an amendment tabled to the Bill; we have already done it. The Welsh Labour Government have failed to do so. We have brought the Ivory Act 2018 into force, and we have extended it to five more endangered species.
This is in addition to the wide array of reforms we have introduced since 2010, including slaughterhouse improvements, mandatory CCTV and improving the welfare of laying hens and meat chickens; companion animal reforms relating to breeding, pet selling and pet boarding; banning wild animals and travelling circuses; banning glue traps, and new powers to tackle hare coursing, horse fly-grazing and various dog issues. We continue to make progress on important issues by backing Bills that ban the import of hunting trophies, ban the trade in detached shark fins—I was pleased to see that it had already passed its Third Reading in the other place—and another that is under way to ban advertising here of unacceptable animal attractions abroad. We are also making strides to improve farm animal welfare, with the animal health and welfare pathway, and through vet visits supported by financial grants. We will continue to focus on delivering for animals without being distracted by, frankly, Opposition antics.
I now turn to some of the points raised in the debate. There were various questions about whether puppy farms are to be allowed. No, they are already banned. They were banned by legislation that we passed in 2018, and it was further tackled by the Lucy’s law ban on third-party sellers. On stopping primates being kept as pets, primates in the future must be kept to zoo standards. That is in the consultation and it is how we will regulate it, so that is one of the issues. On the future Government approach to a live exports ban, if the Scottish Government would like us to continue to extend this to Great Britain, we will be very happy to do that when the Bill gets presented again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked whether we will commit to tackle pet theft. He will know that it is already illegal to steal pets. However, one of his proposals was that there are some other legislative vehicles we could use and that we could check the use of those powers. I will ask my officials to check that  legislation to see if we can use such powers, but I am also looking at other possible legal vehicles to achieve that.
The hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) asked what we are doing about zoos. DEFRA maintains a close working relationship with the zoo sector, and we will continue to build on that to identify improvements. We aim to publish updated zoo standards later this year, which we have developed in collaboration with the sector and the Zoo Experts Committee, which raise standards and support enforcement. I enjoyed my visit to Chester zoo a few years ago. Actually, as a little girl, I used to go and see Jubilee the elephant. Of course, I went at the time of her predecessor, but I know there are Labour MPs in neighbouring constituencies who would like to close Chester zoo tomorrow, if they could.
On aspects of what there is to do, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Sir Bill Wiggin), who I think spoke eloquently. He has offered to sponsor a private Member’s Bill, which I would be very happy to take him up on.

Alex Davies-Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Therese Coffey: I am actually answering the questions that were asked during the debate rather than taking further interventions.
On other elements, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). I know she is passionately concerned about dog attacks, as indeed is my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson). My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) spoke powerfully about the importance of animal welfare. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) asked whether, if the legislation is introduced, there will be another consultation, and the answer is no. That would not be needed, because a private Member’s Bill can just be adopted and supported.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby); making such a contribution has been a really important element. There are many more colleagues I could thank, but I do want to thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). I know that this is a particular passion of his. There were too many good speeches from Conservative Members to pull out, but let us come back to—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 256.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House notes the Government’s statement on 25 May 2023 regarding the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill; and welcomes the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries’ commitment that the Government will be taking forward measures from the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill individually during the remainder of this Parliament, including on the keeping and licensing of primates, livestock worrying, export of livestock, pet theft and the importation of dogs, cats and ferrets.

Private Pension Schemes: Regulation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Kevan Jones: I am pleased to have secured the debate. The heading refers to “private pension schemes”, but I want to refer to a particular scheme, the Nissan pension plan, although I accept that some of the issues I will raise could affect other schemes as well.
Let me start by giving some of the background. The Nissan pension plan is a defined benefit scheme that was closed in 2020. In the north-east, this issue mainly affects those who work at the Nissan manufacturing plant, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). However, many of the employees lived, and continue to live, across the north-east, including in my constituency.
As in other pension schemes, benefits under the Nissan scheme are subject to an annual increase. However, the rate of that increase depends on when the pension entitlement was accrued. The part of the pension that was accrued after 2005 is increased by up to 2.5%. The part that was accrued between 1997 and 2005 is increased by 5%. Anything accrued before 1997—this is the main part of the scheme—is subject to discretionary increases by the pension trustees.
I say that at the beginning to explain the context of how the issue I am going to raise has come about. In 2011, the trustees of the Nissan pension scheme changed the rules around the funding when individuals take a lump sum out of their pension—when people retire, it is quite common that they commute a lump sum from their pension. The trustees decided that any lump sum would initially be paid through money in the accrual pot from 1997 to 2005—the pot with the highest increase. Should that pot be used up, they would go to the next pot—the post-2005 pot, which gets the second highest annual increase. Only if that had been exhausted could the pre-1997 contributions be touched. In effect, that reversed what happened under the plan’s previous rules. The impact is that, if a Nissan pension scheme member takes a lump sum from their pension, their remaining pension will increase at a lower annual rate—if there are any increases at all; I will come to the pre-1997 pots in a minute, which have not had an increase for 23 years. This was brought about by decisions taken by the pension trustees.
The issue was raised with me by my constituent Steve Clare, who has now been inundated as other pensioners have learned what has happened to their pensions. He has formed an action group, which has members from across not just the north-east of England but the country who are part of the Nissan pension scheme. Hundreds of people are affected, and they are finding out about these changes only when they come to take their pension and realise that they are not actually getting any increase in it.

Jim Shannon: I commend the right hon. Member for bringing this issue forward. He said in his introduction that this issue will affect many other people across the United Kingdom who have  pensions, and I will give an example. I recently had a young lady in my office whose pension has decreased over the last two years. She said, “Jim, I have no idea how these things work, but I know this: by the time  I retire, my state pension won’t be enough. How do I know what to do?” That is the eternal question; the fact is that people have no idea what happens with their pension—they trust the provider. Does the right hon. Member therefore agree that, now more than ever, we need to ensure that providers are trustworthy—that is No. 1—and that that comes with better and good regulation, which, with respect, is down to the Minister and the Government?

Kevan Jones: I thank the hon. Member—it would not be an Adjournment debate without his intervention. He raises an interesting point. Most people do not understand their pension; they put their trust in the provider. They think that they are saving for their retirement and that they should have a pension when they retire—let us be honest, we have all encouraged people to pay into a pension—only to be let down by the way in which the various schemes operate. I will touch on the regulation in a minute.
I want to make two key points at this stage. First, the change to the pension scheme was not directly communicated to pension plan members. In fact, having done some research, I understand there is no legal requirement for the scheme to do so. However, the trustees cover themselves slightly on page 8 of the 2011 annual report by saying that, during the planned year, they had made changes to some factors and a calculation of methodology—it is literally two lines in the annual report. I beg anyone to understand what that meant in practice for people’s pensions. The annual report provided no further detail and, frankly, it is not worth the paper it is written on. The first time most people found out about this was when they realised the pension they had already taken was not increasing.
According to the Pensions Regulator’s website, trustees must act in “the best interests” of scheme members, as well as “prudently, responsibly and honestly.” In this case, I would argue that the trustees are not putting the interests of pensioners first; they are putting the interests of Nissan Motor Corporation above those of pensioners. The cumulative effect of what they have done is to save Nissan money it would have put into the pension scheme. Nor would I argue that it is responsible or honest to hide the changes in less than two lines of an annual report. There was no direct communication to let pensioners, or potential pensioners, know about the changes and how they would affect future years.
When I heard about this, I thought the obvious person to go to was the pensions ombudsman or the Pensions Regulator. Well, there was a bit of a ping-pong between the two of them. One wrote to me saying that the other was responsible, and vice versa. It went backwards and forwards. Frankly, my experience of them is that they are about as much good as a chocolate teapot. They are just blaming one another. It was this Member of Parliament writing to them—heaven help an individual pensioner writing to them to get any joy out of them.
It comes back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on regulation and how we control these pension schemes. As I say, my experience   of those two organisations has not been very good, so I would like the Minister to look at that point about the regulator and the ombudsman.

Mary Foy: Constituents have contacted me on this very issue, so I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does he agree that this is an outrageous way to treat workers and that, frankly, it reflects terribly on Nissan?

Kevan Jones: It is. These people have worked hard and saved into their pension. They think they have done the right thing and, through no fault of their own, they have found themselves in this position.
I did finally get a line out of the pensions ombudsman; he said that he was not prepared to look at the case because that notification, that one line in the annual report, was good enough. I find it absolutely amazing that it could be argued that this is communication with pension members. I doubt very many people actually read their pension scheme’s annual report. I am one of the sad people who do, but that is because of my trade union background. Many people do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) knows that I am a bit of an anorak when it comes to the pension industry. Again, the idea that that can be held up as showing that the pension trustees have informed the pensioners is ridiculous. But that was the end of the game—no more correspondence came forward from either the regulator or the ombudsman.

Ben Everitt: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for securing this debate. I know how hard he has worked on this issue, and I am also grateful for his time in talking me through some of these issues. I have been contacted by two constituents who have also been affected by this. They make a similar point to him, pointing to the one and a half lines in the “annual pension meeting report”, as they term it. So it is possibly not even the annual report. They say that the impact of that change has never been explained. Does he agree with my constituent who said that this was a very underhand way of approaching pensions?

Kevan Jones: It is a very underhand way. If people’s pensions are going to be changed by some trustees, they should at least fully inform people of the effects. In this case, some people based their decision, especially before 2011, on what lump sum they would take on what was going to go forward. I would be interested to know whether those retiring now and accessing this scheme are being told, “In most of your pension, you won’t get any increase in future.” The hon. Gentleman demonstrates another point: this affects people not just in the north-east of England, but across the country. Transparency and honesty with people about their pensions has to be achieved.

Sharon Hodgson: I commend my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done on this issue and for bringing this debate tonight. He is talking about the number of people affected and saying that they are not just in my patch, in Sunderland, or even just in the north-east; they could be spread right across the country. Does he have any idea of the number of people who may be involved and affected by this?

Kevan Jones: I do not, but I know that Mr Clare, my constituent who has put this on Facebook, has been inundated with messages from people from around the country who were not aware. Partly it is the cost of living crisis—suddenly, people are thinking, “Wait a minute, why isn’t my pension going up as much as it used to?” It is all right saying to people, “You should be tracking this and what you’re doing” but most people do not live like that. They just assume that a credible pension scheme such as this should treat them fairly and that they would actually get this. So the number of people affected could be quite large.
Secondly, I said earlier that the pre-1997 benefits are subject to an annual increase at the discretion of the trustees. Well, there has been no discretionary increase in these pension pots in the Nissan pension scheme for 23 years. Nissan has made no additional contributions to the scheme to provide any increase. If someone’s pension is mainly in the pre-1997 pot, inflation is eating it away: inflation in the cost of living now, but also in future. If they live long enough, it will basically be worthless. We have 9% inflation at the moment, but if that is not dealt with, it will eat away at the pensions of those people who expected that they would have a comfortable retirement.
In 2020, Nissan said that the defined-benefit scheme was unsustainable. Let us be honest, many defined-benefit schemes were closed. However, the issue with that is in 2020, Nissan made £68 million in profit. The company has also received many millions of pounds of public money, but it is clearly not doing the right thing by its workers.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Kevan Jones: Most people did not find out about the implications until they realised that their pension was not being increased. The fact that Nissan had not put anything into the scheme means that the pensioners are basically paying for the scheme as it goes forward. Ultimately, Nissan needs to put money into the scheme, just as other organisations have had to put into their schemes, but that brings me back to the point about what the trustees are doing—they are clearly not acting in the interests of the pensioners.
This is one scheme, and I accept that there are others where this will have happened. Hard-working people are being short-changed. They trusted that the pension trustees would be looking after their interests, when they clearly are not.
I know some people will say, “Why are you attacking Nissan?” Well, I do not wish to do that. Nissan has been a fantastic employer, bringing employment and regeneration to the north-east, over the last 20-odd years. Nissan has not only employed people, but it has provided jobs in the supply chain as well. It has been an economic success story for the north-east. However, we must remember that that success has been derived from the hard work of people who are now in receipt of pensions. We should not forget that, in terms of the situation in which they now find themselves.
The Minister will know that this will not be the only scheme that has been affected, but could she look at the ombudsman and the regulator? They are clearly not fit for purpose. In this case, we have an issue that will grow. Possibly after this debate, more people will look at their pension statements and realise how they are being short-changed. It is not fair that hard-working, loyal employees of Nissan are being made to pay for issues that are not theirs. They have worked hard and deserve their retirement. They expected a good retirement but, alas, they are not going to get it, in many cases.

Laura Trott: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing the debate and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to it.
It is absolutely vital that pension savers have confidence in the running of their pensions, as we have discussed this evening. Employers and trustees must be open and transparent with their pension scheme members, and be absolutely clear when they make changes to the benefits members will receive or how they are able to take their pensions.
Savers in defined-benefit schemes are in entirely advantageous positions, which is why the Government require specialist advice to be sought in advance of anyone wanting to transfer significant savings out of a defined-benefit scheme and into a defined-contribution scheme.
It is equally important that when members opt to make changes to the way they receive their benefits, or indeed any pensions, they can access the information and guidance they need to understand what the implications of that would be. It is extremely concerning that there seems to have been a lack of communication, as the right hon. Gentleman outlined. It is of course the case that many schemes offer members a number of choices of how to take their benefits, such as partly in a lump sum if the scheme rules and tax rules permit it. In these cases, the scheme rules detail the calculations to be used, and the trustees can change the details of the scheme rules if they are able to do so within the scheme.
Although legislation is silent on the way in which these rules and calculations must operate, there are safeguards for members. Trustees, as discussed, have a duty to act in the interest of all members rather than of any particular group, and to do so they must take into account a range of factors. They will, for example, take into account the funding position of the scheme to protect the interests of current and future members and may make changes to the shape of benefit arrangements in the pursuit of that goal provided that the scheme rules allow it. Trustees should also work closely with the scheme actuary to ensure that all members get a fair value from the commutation arrangements. But— this is the key point of the debate today—it is crucial that each member has sufficient information before deciding whether alternative arrangements, such as taking a lump sum, are the best course of action for them. If members feel that they were given incorrect or insufficient information   to make an informed choice, or if the trustees did not act according to the scheme rules, then they can take their complaint to the pensions ombudsman.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he wrote to the regulator and to the ombudsman and both referred him to the other, and he asked what redress there is for members in this situation. Let me clarify the role of the two organisations. The Pensions Regulator is the UK regulator of workplace pension schemes. It makes sure that employers put their staff into a pension scheme and pay money into it. It also makes sure that workplace pension schemes are run properly, so that people can save for their later years. Its focus is on the running of those pension schemes, trustees and scheme managers. There are duties on those parties and those working with them, including to report breaches to the regulator.
The pensions ombudsman, on the other hand, adjudicates on disputes between pension schemes and their members, as we are discussing in this case. If members of any scheme would like help in understanding options for retirement income and any documentation they have received for their scheme, I encourage them in the first instance to contact MoneyHelper, which is provided by the Money and Pensions Service, an independent, non-departmental public body.

Julie Elliott: Many dozens of my constituents are affected by the Nissan pension scheme. We have discussed in this debate the role of the ombudsman. The answer the ombudsman has given in this case is entirely unsatisfactory, and I know that all my constituents affected think so too. What was the Minister’s view of the ombudsman’s response in this case?

Laura Trott: I will come to that in a moment. If the hon. Lady thinks I have not answered her question properly, then she is very welcome to intervene again.
As I was saying, the Money and Pensions Service is an independent, non-departmental public body, which provides a free information and guidance service to the public on all matters related to workplace and personal pension schemes. In this case, I understand that in determining one case—not the individual case of Mr Steve Clare, but a case relating to identical issues in the Nissan pension plan—the ombudsman noted that the plan members were presented with an illustration of future benefits and options in retirement. However, if that was not the case—and certainly from the speech of the right hon. Member for North Durham that is not what appears to have happened—I ask him to provide me with all the details that he has and I will raise it directly with the ombudsman myself and provide a copy of the response.

Ben Everitt: That is exactly the case, certainly for one of the two constituents I have been contacted by. Further to that, the word they use in their correspondence to me is that they were “encouraged” to take out a lump sum. To me, that goes beyond giving information and crosses over potentially into giving advice. Given that that advice was not in their best interest, because it has affected their pension so disastrously—to the tune of more than £100,000—is there a case for looking at the regulatory side, rather than the ombudsman, in relation to the advice that has been given?

Laura Trott: It is absolutely correct that scheme members should have received an illustration, as discussed. If that was not the case, that is something we need to pursue. If instead they received advice that was indeed misleading, that should absolutely be taken up with the ombudsman and, where necessary, the regulator. Again, if my hon. Friend would like to pass me any information he has on that case, I will take it up directly with the ombudsman.

Kevan Jones: I am not aware of any illustrations being given, but, if they were, that illustration would also have had to explain to individuals where the lump sum was coming out of and its impact on future increases on the pension. I shall do more research and talk to people, but I am not aware that that type of detail was ever explained to people, as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) said.

Laura Trott: The right hon. Gentleman is right that that should have happened; if it did not happen, that is a matter for the ombudsman. That is what I think we need to pursue following this debate. He is also absolutely right that those changes should have been communicated clearly and directly, to allow people to plan properly for retirement.
I am about to sum up, so if anyone else would like to intervene, please do. Otherwise, I just want to say that I am of course happy to discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed with anybody else who would like to take it up with me. I commend him once again for bringing this very important matter to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.